Court No. - 33
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1998 of 2005 Appellant :- Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Respondent :- Smt.Sheela And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Vashistha Tewari And Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1999 of 2005 Appellant :- Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Respondent :- Smt. Sheela And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Singh
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vashistha Tewari, learned counsel for the respondent. None appeared on behalf of respondent-owner.
2. Both these appeals challenge the judgment and award dated 12.5.2005 passed in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Deoria (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No.434 of 2003 and M.A.C.P. No. 435 of 2003 awarding compensation of Rs.7,00,640/- and Rs.7,72,000/- respectively in favour of the claimants.
3. The M.A.C. P. No. 434 of 2003 was filed by Sheela, the daughter of deceased Amla Pandey and Bahurani, the mother of the deceased, claiming compensation of Rs.31,50,000/- for the death of Amla Pandey. The M.A.C.P. No. 435 of 2003 was also filed by Sheela as daughter of Shanti Devi and Bahurani as mother-in-law of Shanti Devi, claiming compensation of Rs.20,40,000/- for the death of Shanti Devi.
4. The brother of the appellant, Harikesh Pandey, was made a party-respondent.
5. The brief facts go to show that on fateful date, both Amla Pandey and his wife Shanti Devi died out of vehicular accidental injuries which was happened when they were traveling in Maruti Van No. DL9C-B/8335 as the driver drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and because of that the vehicle turned turtle.
6. The deceased Amla Pandey was alleged to be 55 years of age engaged in selling home appliances and was earning Rs.1,31,000/-. The Insurance Company contended that no case arose against them and they were not liable to make any payment.
7. Grounds urged herein are that the age of the deceased in the Income Tax Report showed that he was 65 years of age. Despite that multiplier of 8 was given holding him to be aged about 55 years.
8. It is submitted that the income of the deceased was considered by the Tribunal to be Rs1,31,000/- and out of which 1/3rd was deducted as personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal granted multiplier of 8 and finally computed the total compensation of Rs.7,00,640/- which according to the appellant is illegal as Income Tax Certificate of the year 2003-04 were of no relevance. It is also submitted that the deceased was survived by mother who was 75 years of age and, therefore, multiplier on the basis of her age should have been applied.
9. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the Income Tax Department's certificate is also in doubt. Similar are the submissions in the other matter for the compensation for the death of the mother and daughter-in-law.
10. While considering all these arguments, it is evident from the record that the deceased was paying income tax and in that view of the matter, can it be said that calculation of income on the basis of the said certificate and death certificate is bad? The answer is NO.
11. The age of the deceased could not have been 65 years and it should have been rightly held to be between 55-60 years. His income has been rightly considered rather the Tribunal has not considered any amount under the head of future loss of income. The multiplier of 8 cannot be said to be on the higher side. The Income Tax Returns also weigh in favour of the claimants.
12. The submission that the daughter was married, hence, she was not the legal heir is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance Company, Limited, AIR 2007 SC 1474, hence, this ground also fails.
13. In view of the above, both the appeals fail and are dismissed.
14. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith.
15. This Court is thankful to Sri Ramesh Singh and Sri Vashistha Tiwari, learned counsel for the parties for getting these old matters disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 DKS