NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SWARN KANTA SAHGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award of the Court below exercising powers under the Motor Vehicles Act, dated 18.12.1987. By this judgment Court below had granted compensation to the respondents in connection with the death of one Jang Bahadur Sahgal to the tune of Rs. 54,000/- along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 10.4.1986 till the date of payment.

(2.) THE deceased is said to have been retired army personnel and after his retirement he had sought a private employment in a club. On the fateful day he was going on his scooter when the truck in question owned by one Satpal Singh which was being driven rashly and negligently, hit the scooter from the back side and the deceased is said to have died on the spot. The occurrence is said to have been witnessed by some passersby. The Claimants had preferred a Claim for compensation for Rs. 6,20,000/- but the Tribunal granted only Rs. 54,000/-. The deceased was held to be 56 years of age at the time of his death and Tribunal held that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. His income was said to be Rs. 500/- per month. Tribunal has also observed that deceased must have been spending Rs. 200/- per month on his own-self and he must have been giving Rs. 300/- per month to his family. He in this manner was contributing towards his family Rs. 3600/- per year. The Claimants had failed to prove that deceased was getting any pension from the army. Since deceased was more than 30 years of age, multiplier of 15 years was applied to him and without any directions the Claimants were held to be entitled to the amount determined by the Court below. Since the truck in question was insured with the appellant, therefore, the appellant had to shoulder the responsibility of payment of compensation.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the compensation granted by the Tribunal was excessive as the incorrect multiplier was applied. He has referred to some authorities which need to be commented upon. In Laxmidhar Mohanty and another v. Bhanu Dei and Anr. 1980 ACJ 510 the Orissa High Court has enhanced the amount in a case of an injury which caused the permanent disability from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 38,000/-. In this case two appeals were decided together. In another appeal deceased was a sub-contractor who was earning between Rs. 700/- and Rs. 900/- per month. He was contributing about Rs. 3,500/- to the family every year. At the time of death he was about 35 years of age. Multiplier of 10 years was applied and his contribution towards his family was held to be Rs. 2,500/- only and on the basis of this about Rs. 21,000/- was awarded. In another authority Mahipal Co-op. Society Ltd. and Ors v. Prabhati and Ors. 1986 ACJ 46 deceased who was 40 years of age, drawing a salary of Rs. 800/- per month plus bonus, etc. Monthly dependency of the family was held to be Rs. 700/-. Multiplier of 20 years was adopted and compensation was granted by multiplying 20 years with his yearly dependency of Rs. 8,400/-. In Lakshmamma and Ors. v. C. Das and Ors. 1985 ACT 199 deceased was 50 years old and earning Rs. 5/- or Rs. 6/- per day. Monthly dependency of the family was fixed at Rs. 80/- per month. Multiplier of 10 years was adopted. In Smt. Krishna Kumari Gupta and others v. Gur Buxeesh and Ors. the deceased's age was 30 years and he was contributing Rs. 300/- per month to his family. The Tribunal had applied 100 months' multiplier and had calculated the compensation on that basis. The High Court held that 16 years multiplier should have been adopted and the compensation was enhanced.