Court No. - 25
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 246 of 2000
Appellant :- Smt. Manju
Respondent :- National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- V.K. Dixit
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Shri V.K. Dixit, learned counsel for the claimant and Shri A.A. Khan, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
2. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1988') has been filed by the claimant praying to enhance the compensation as awarded by the IInd Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahjahanpur (hereinafter referred to as, 'Tribunal') through its judgement and award dated 12.11.1999 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 98 of 1997. The Tribunal has awarded a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 80,000/- to the claimant without applying the multiplier method.
3. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 98 of 1997 was instituted by the claimant alleging that her husband died on 27.2.1997 in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Matador No. 08/R-3731 and Truck No. HR-37/6441. The vehicles were owned by respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and were insured with respondent Nos. 1 and 3, i.e., the National Insurance Company Limited, Shahjahanpur. In its impugned award dated 12.11.1999, the Tribunal held that the husband of the claimant died in the accident caused due to the composite negligence of the drivers of the above stated vehicles. In its impugned award, the Tribunal also held that the vehicles were insured with respondent Nos. 1 and 3, i.e., the National Insurance Company Limited, Shahjahanpur. However, the Tribunal after recording a finding that the husband of the deceased was a labour working on daily wage basis, awarded a lump-
sump compensation of Rs. 80,000/- without applying the multiplier method and without determining the multiplicand.
4. The impugned award dated 12.11.1999, so far as it awards a lump-sump amount as compensation to the claimant without applying the multiplier method and without determining the multiplicand is contrary to the law settled by the Supreme Court in its different judgements. In General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C. Vs. Susamma Thomas, 1994 (2) SCC 176, the Supreme Court held that the proper method to compute compensation in a particular case was the multiplier method as the multiplier method introduces consistency, uniformity and an element of predictability in assessment of compensation. The Tribunal also did not determine the multiplicand in the present case obviously because it was awarding a lump- sum compensation to the claimant. A reading of the impugned award dated 12.11.1999 passed by the Tribunal also shows that no compensation has been awarded to the claimant under the conventional heads, i.e., the loss of consortium, loss of estate and for funeral expenses. Thus, the award of the Tribunal only so far as it concerns computation of compensation to the claimant is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned award dated 12.11.1999 passed by the Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 98 of 1997 so far as it concerns computation of compensation to the claimant is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to compute compensation payable to the claimant after applying the proper multiplier as provided by the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another 2009 (6) SCC 121. The Tribunal shall determine the multiplicand in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court in Mishri Lal Yadav & Another Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
& Others, 2018 (2) T.A.C. 434 (All) and the judgments of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram (2018 SCC Online SC 1546). The Tribunal shall also award compensation under the conventional heads as provided by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra). The Tribunal shall re-compute the compensation in accordance with the directions given above within six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it.
6. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is allowed.
Order Date :- 21.12.2018 Anurag/-