Court No. - 27
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 646 of 2007 Appellant :- The National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent :- Smt. Safia & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Viqar Ahmed Ansari,Mohd. Farooqi Ansari Counsel for Respondent :- Nigmendra Shukla,Pankaj Bharti
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This appeal at the behest of National Insurance Company Limited has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 30.11.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.12, Muzaffar Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.5 of 2006.
The Insurance Company has challenged the quantum. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on decisions in Donat Louis Machado Vs.
L. Ravindra, LAWS(SC) 1997 (12) 129, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman Iyer and Another, (2003), 8 SCC 731 and Gyanchand Jain Vs. Parmanand, LAWS (SC) 2002 (12) 39 and contend that the multiplier should be that of the age of claimants who were the parents of the deceased.
Unfortunately, it appears that learned counsel for the appellant does not get himself updated. The decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 propounded the proposition that the age of the deceased should be considered. Further, the Apex Court in a three Judge Bench decision headed by Justice Anil R. Dave in Munna Lal Jain and Another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others, 2015 LawSuit (SC) 536 has held that the age of the deceased should be the criteria for application of multiplier. Here the deceased was below the age of 25 hence the multiplier of 18 has to be applied. Hence, this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted.
Per contra, Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the decision of the Devision Bench of this High Court in F.A.F.O. No. 2389 of 2016 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Vidyawati Devi & 2 Others) decided on 27.7.2016 which has been followed time and again by this Court that for doing justice, just compensation has to be awarded even without there being an application for enhancement. In this case, it is an admitted position of fact that the Tribunal has considered the multiplier of 16 which should have been 18, no future prospect has been considered and very meagre amount under the head of non pecuniary damages has been awarded.
Further, the submission that out of the earning of the deceased 2/3rd had to be deducted is also rejected as nothing under the head of future income has been granted and therefore even if we deduct 1/2 the addition under future prospect would be much more than the deduction.
The Tribunal has considered the admissible amount to the family to be Rs.24,000/- per year and multiplied the same with 16 and a very meagre amount was given under the head of non pecuniary damages. Hence, I enhance the same by Rs.50,000/- as the petition was under Section 166 of the Act, 1988, an additional amount of Rs.35,000/- under non pecuniary heads will also have to be given.
In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed.
The additional amount be recalculated and be deposited within 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 9%. The record of the Tribunal be transmitted to it forthwith.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 DKS