UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. ZARINA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of this Civil First Miscellaneous Appeal, in terms of Sec. 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, the appellant-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has challenged the award/judgment dtd. 4/1/2020 passed in case No.90/Claim titled "Zarina Begum & Anr. V/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Poonch (hereafter, 'the Tribunal' for short), whereby, compensation for an amount of Rs.17,83,600.00 along with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of institution till its realization has been awarded in favour of the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2, payable by the appellant-Company as insurer.

(2.) The impugned award has been challenged on the grounds that the same has been passed contrary to the facts and record of the case and law on the point; that the amount of compensation is exorbitant, unjustifiable and does not conform to the guidelines laid down by High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; that the compensation has been wrongly calculated which has led to an increase of an amount of about Rs.2,00,000.00 that the deceased who at the time of his death was at a young age of 22 years was accepted as skilled mason by the Tribunal taking his income at a sum of Rs.8,000.00 wrongly and further that respondent No.2 who is claimed to the brother of the deceased was living with him, and not with his parents and dependent upon the deceased; that the Tribunal was not justified in making 1/3rd deduction, as in case of only the widow being dependent upon the deceased the deduction on account of single dependent should have been taken as 50%, which has resulted into inflated Award passed by the Tribunal; that there was no conclusive proof that respondent No.2, brother of the deceased was in any manner dependent upon the deceased; that the Tribunal which was under an obligation to have fixed due and just compensation has committed error on all counts, accepting the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000.00 as a skilled labour, wrong deduction of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased on his personal living expenses and finally, it was prayed that the impugned Award be set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Tribunal had committed an error by accepting the income of the deceased who was 22 years of age at the time of his death as Rs.8,000.00 treating him as a skilled worker being mason, whereas fact of the matter is that at this young age, the claimant could not have been treated as skilled worker and should have been treated as unskilled worker and his income should have been accepted as per the Government notification on minimum wages applicable for the year in which deceased died in a vehicular accident. He has further argued that the petition had been filed by wife and brother of the deceased, however, the brother who was himself earning could not be dependent upon the deceased and, as such, the wife being only dependent on the deceased as the sole dependent on him. 50% of his income should have been deducted for expenses on his personal living and the loss of dependency of the wife could be 50% and the Tribunal had wrongly deducted the income of the deceased as 1/3rd instead of 1/2 on his personal expenses so as to work out the monthly loss of dependency to the dependents. He has further argued that the Tribunal had made a wrong calculation on the figures taken for the calculation of the compensation also and there is a difference of an amount of Rs.1,98,468.00 inasmuch as, even in the calculation made by the Tribunal in taking income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.8,000.00 and then making addition of 40% on the wages of the deceased, the income of the deceased for the purpose of calculation comes to a sum of Rs.11,200.00 and after deduction of 1/3rd, the amount should have been Rs.15,93,268.00 instead of amount of Rs.17,83,600.00 under the head loss of dependency. He finally prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned award be set aside so as to make the award just and proper.