NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. BALWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal in FAO No. 4377 of 2009 is by the Insurance Company urging the issue of quantum awarded to the claimants in the case of death of an Indian national settled in Germany. He was said to be a cook in a restaurant. The Insurance Company sought for permission under Section 170 to contest the case principally on the ground that it had doubts about the involvement of the insured's vehicle and it suspected collusion between the claimant and the insured as regards the aspect of negligence.

(2.) At the trial, the widow filed a document relating to his salary and sought to contend that he was earning about 2,000 euro and that he used to hand over a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month for household expenses. She would also state that he used to come India once in a year and that he came to India 10/15 days prior to, his death. The Tribunal took the income to be Rs. 4,00,000/- per year and having regard to the fact that he was living in Germany where the cost of living would have been higher. The Tribunal assumed that he would have spent larger amount for himself and that he would have spent only 50% to the family. It took, therefore, Rs. 2 lakhs as the extent of dependency, adopted a multiplier of 16 and awarded a compensation of Rs. 32,00,000/-.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company contends before this Court that the wife was not dependent at all on her husband and takes me through the evidence of PW1, where answers were elicited in the cross-examination that the wife did not have a bank account nor did she show any remittances from foreign country to her to gather the extent of contribution by the husband to the wife. I would think this attempt of the Insurance Company to be wholly unnecessary and uncalled for. I have already observed that the permission under Section 170 was obtained principally on an issue relating to the accident and the involvement of the vehicle. There was No. doubt expressed that the claimant was trying to fabricate documents with the assistance of owner or the driver. I would allow for certain latitude for an Insurance Company that operates on public funds that a claimant does not walk away with a lottery and that the Tribunal shall award a just compensation on what is brought through evidence. If there was evidence by the wife that her husband was employed in a foreign country and he was earning money in foreign currency and there was also proof that she was the lawfully wedded wife and she had children through him, then the issue of dependence is a matter of inference brought through the provisions of the Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act and what the wife herself states in her evidence, It will be unfair for an insurer to join issues on quantum at the trial with No. ground or basis for questioning the wife as to how the money came to India. The remittances by a husband to a wife is perhaps one of the methods of realization of the money and showing dependence. If proof of remittance was not tendered at the trial, there could not be a half way house between dependence and want of dependence to say that she could have received money, but not in the manner that she spoke but some lesser amount. If the argument were to be accepted that the money had not been remitted to her, the logical of extension of the arguments must only be that No. money at all had been given to the wife and that she and her children could never have been dependents on the deceased. I would find this to be an irresponsible position for an insurer to advance.