RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. KISHORE KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal brought by the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer against the award dated 22.01.2011 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court) Sonepat (for short 'the Tribunal'). The challenge by way of this appeal is to the calculation aspect of the compensation. Kishore Kumar and Smt. Devenderi, the claimants are the parents of Rahul, deceased, who died on account of the injuries suffered in a road side accident that took place on 20.01.2010. Vide the impugned award, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,82,072/- as compensation to the claimants. On 20.01.2010 Rahul met with an accident while he and his uncle Joni were travelling on a motorcycle. The accident occurred with three wheeler bearing registration No. HR-69-9040 driven by respondent No. 1. Rahul suffered serious injuries, which proved fatal. Rahul was 22 years of age and a student of B.A. Part II. He was running a tuition centre at his house and was earning Rs. 8000/- per month.

(2.) The claim petition has been resisted by the respondents, who not only denied the accident to have occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the three-wheeler but have also controverted the claim of the appellants with regard to the age and income of the deceased.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the deceased had been stated to be 22 years of age and was a student of BA Part-II. According to him, learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs. 4000/- per month. He has submitted that the cut applied to this income to assess the dependency of the claimants is 1/3rd whereas it should be 1/2. According to him, the multiplier has been selected by learned Tribunal on the basis of the age of the deceased and that is also not correct. According to him, in case the victim is a bachelor, the multiplier would have to be governed by the age of the claimants. He has further submitted that the age of the claimants is between 40 to 45 years and the multiplier should have been of 14 instead of 18. According to him, assessing the compensation by applying a cut of 1/2 and taking the multiplier of 14, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal would clearly be proved to be on a very higher side.