NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. MEWA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of a male person aged 51 years. The claims were made by the widow and the major sons. It is an admitted case that the Tribunal took the income at Rs.15,000/- per month and worked out a contribution to the family at Rs.10,000/-, after deduction of 1/3rd and assessed the age at 50 years on the basis of post-mortem entry and applied a multiplier of 10. The Court was looking for the formula as set down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 6 SCC 121 and although, in the said judgment the recommended value as 13, the Tribunal justified relatively lower multiplier on the ground that the family was being paid the last drawn pay as per the Haryana Compassionate Assistance Scheme enabling a dependent to draw the same salary for rest of the period of service, subject to certain conditions, as was drawn at the time of death. The Tribunal, therefore, took a relatively low multiplier and assessed the compensation.

(2.) Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant states that the entire case of alleged negligence of the insured driver was anchored to FIR lodged by PW-2. The involvement of the vehicle itself was not in doubt although, there had been general denial regarding its involvement. The FIR specifically referred to the insured's vehicle as having been involved in the accident.

(3.) Learned senior counsel referred to PW2's own evidence where he has deposed that he arrived at the spot a few minutes after the incident and he was not a personal witness to the accident. Learned senior counsel would, therefore, argue that no eye-witness was examined to show the rashness and negligence and entitlement to damages on the basis of the FIR and the evidence of PW-2, who was admittedly not an eye-witness cannot sustain the finding of rash and negligent driving of the insured's driver. The counsel would further argue that the claimants had the benefit of the last drawn pay in terms of the Government Scheme and, therefore, the entire amount of dependence must be properly scaled down by taking note of the salary that was being paid under the State Scheme. There is also cross-objection for enhancement of the claim at the instance of the claimants.