MILAPA DEVI Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant is on appeal challenging the quantum and seeking for enhancement of compensation. The deceased was the driver of Matador Van, which dashed against yet another vehicle coming from the opposite direction. The Tribunal took the dependence on the deceased for the widow and the daughter at Rs. 750/- per month, adopted a multiplier of 16 and determined a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. It had found that the deceased himself had contributed to the accident in equal measure with the insured's vehicle and caused 50% abatement of the claim and sliced down the compensation entitlement to Rs. 75,000/- with interest @12%. From the language employed by the Tribunal in the award, it is not very clear whether the insurance company was made liable or not.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants would contend that the income must be taken at Rs. 1900/- and a further provision of increase in salary for a period of time must also be provided in the manner done by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC, 2009 6 SCC 121: It is also further contended that the negligence could not have been caused on the deceased and the whole negligence must have been cast only on the driver of the insured's vehicle. The counsel appearing on behalf of the person, who was the owner of the vehicle, would contend that the registered owner, however, was Rockland Leasing Ltd. and he was merely a lessee of the vehicle and consequently, the liability must have been fastened only on the Rockland Leasing Company Ltd. The insurance company would take a plea that if the vehicle had been granted on lease to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, they had not been shown as the lessees in the policy. Therefore, there is no liability for the insurance company to satisfy the claim. As regards the person that drove the vehicle, he had died and the other most competent person to speak about the accident was the driver of the other truck, which was involved in the accident. The Tribunal referred to the photographs and the site plans which had been brought out to find that the accident had taken place on a broad road and it was a case of head on collision and therefore, it would not be possible to rely on the evidence of either the claimant or the driver, who were tendering charges against each other as being wholly responsible for the accident. It apportioned the liability between the drivers of the respective vehicles and found that the deceased himself contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%. I will make no deviation from the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal and would accept the same.

(3.) As regards the income of the deceased, I am prepared to go with what was set out in the award and take the income to be Rs. 1900/- and although the plea was made by the learned Counsel that there was also be a scope for future increase in the manner provided for in Sarla Verma v. DTC, 2009 6 SCC 121, it will not be possible for me to accommodate such a plea, for Sarla Verma dispensation has to be understood in the context of how the status of employment had definitely provided for a security of tenure with a sure prospect of increase in salary. It has still not come as practice that in every case where proof of income is possible, there could be always a mandate for providing for future increase. The method of awarding compensation and providing for a lump sum amount makes several approximations and accelerated payment of lump sum of what would otherwise be staggered through the entire life must itself be taken as a compensating factor in certain situations. I would, therefore, take the ' income at Rs. 1900/- per month, provide for a l/3rd deduction for personal consumption and take the contribution to the family at Rs. 1,266/-. I would adopt a multiplier of 18 as provided under Schedule II. The total loss of dependence would be Rs. 2,73,456/-. On this I will add Rs. 5,000/- towards loss to estate and Rs. 2,500/- for loss of love and affection for the child and also provide for Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses. In all, the total amount of compensation that will become payable would be Rs. 2,82,956/-. I will provide for an abatement of 50% for the contributory negligence which I have retained and the amount that will become payable to the claimant would be Rs. 1,41,478/-. The amount in excess over what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment.