1.0 This is an appeal, whereby the appellant- insurance company has challenged the judgment and award of the M.A.C.T.(Main), Kachchh at Bhuj, dated 04.05.2002, rendered in M.A.C.T. No. 389 of 2001, whereby the tribunal partly allowed the said claim petition and awarded Rs.2,97,500/- along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, from the date of application, till its realization.
2.0 The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that, on 08.06.2001, while the deceased was proceeding on the Mundra-Vadala- Gandhidham road on feet, he was dashed from behind by a tanker being driven by respondent No.2, owned by respondent No.3 and insured by the appellant, herein. Therefore, respondent No.1, herein, being the heir and legal representative of the deceased preferred the above said claim petition, wherein the tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present appeal.
3.0 Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
4.0 The case of respondent No.1-the original claimant before the tribunal was that on account of the alleged accident, the deceased received severe bodily injuries and expired. The case put forward by respondent No.1 is supported by the documentary evidence in the form of affidavit(Exhibit-17), FIR(Mark 11/1), post- mortem note(Mark 11/2). Nothing was brought on record by the original defendants to controvert the case of respondent No.1. The tribunal, therefore, rightly held that respondent No.1 is entitled to claim compensation.
5.0 The learned Counsel for the appellant has raised a contention that the tribunal ought not to have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month, by merely relying on the affidavit filed by respondent No.1. He further submitted that in view of the provisions of Rule-
231 of the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989(hereinafter referred to as 'the said rules' for short), it is the duty of the claimant to prove the aspect of income. Rule-231 of the said Rules, reads as under:
“231. Procedure regarding compensation on the principle of no fault.- Notwithstanding anything contained n rule 211 to 230 and 232 in the case of a claim for compensation under Chapter X of the Act, the procedure shall be as follows, namely-
(1) An application for compensation shall be made to the Claims Tribunal in Form CWF, in triplicate, and shall contain the particulars specified in that form.
(2) The application shall be accompanied by a fee of ten rupees in the form of Court fee stamps, and the following documents, namely:-
(i) First Information Report;
(ii) Injury certificate or Post-mortem report in case of death;
(iii) Heirship certificate in case of death;
(iv) Certificate from the registering authority regarding ownership of the vehicle involved in the accident;
(v) Particulars of insurance of the vehicle involved in the accident;
(3) No fees shall be charged for process of application for compensation made under this rule.
(4) The claims Tribunal shall dispose of the application for compensation within six weeks from the date of receipt of such application
(5) For the purpose of adjudicating and awarding the claim, the Claims Tribunal shall follow the procedure of summary trail as contained in Chapter XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(6) The Claims Tribunal shall not reject any application made under this rule on the ground of any technical defect, but shall give notice to the applicant and get the defect rectified.
(7) For the purpose of adjudicating and awarding the claim, the Claims Tribunal shall obtain whatever information and document considered necessary by it from the police, medical and other authorities.
(8) On receipt of the application for compensation, the Claims Tribunal shall give notice to the owner, and the insurer, if any, of the vehicle involved in the accident, directing them to appear on a date not later than ten days from the date of issue of such notice. The date so fixed for such appearance shall also be not later than fifteen days from the receipt of the application for compensation. The Claims Tribunal shall stated in such notice that, in case they fail to appear on such appointed date, the Tribunal shall proceed ex parte on the presumption that they have no contention to make against the award of compensation.
(9) The Claims Tribunal shall proceed with application for compensation, on the basis of-
(i) First Information Report;
(ii) Injury Certificate or Post-mortem report in case of death;
(iii) Registration certificate of the motor vehicle involved in the accident;
(iv) Cover note, certificate of insurance or the policy, relating to the insurance of the vehicle against third party risks;
(v) the nature of the treatment given by the medical officer who has treated the victim.
(10) The Claims Tribunal, in passing the orders, shall make an award of compensation of twenty five thousand rupees in respect of the death, and of twelve thousand rupees in respect of the permanent disablement, to be paid by the owner or insurer, of the vehicle involved in the accident.
(11) Where compensation is awarded to two or more persons, the Claims Tribunal shall also specify the amount payable to each of them.
(12) The Claims Tribunal in passing the orders, shall also direct the owner or insurer, of the vehicle involved in the accident, to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant within thirty days from the date of the said orders.
(13) Where the Claims Tribunal thinks that the actual payment to the claimant is likely to take time because of the identification and the fixation of the legal heirs of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal may call for the amount of compensation awarded, to be deposited With the Tribunal, and then proceed with the identification of the legal heirs for deciding the payment of compensation to each of the legal heirs.”
5.1 In support of the above submission, the learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of “SMT. SUDHA DEVI VS. M.P. NARAYANAN AND ORS.”, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1381, wherein the Apex Court has observed that the affidavits are not included in the definition of 'evidence', as per the provisions of Section-3 of the Evidence Act.
5.2 He also placed reliance on another decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of “GAGUBHAI @ RAMAIYA MURA VS. GOSWAMI BHIKAU GANGARAM”, reported in 1989(1)GLR 655, wherein also it has been held that a petition involving claim of more than Rs.25,000/- cannot be disposed of, by merely filling affidavits and where it is so done, such an award is liable to be set aside.
5.3 On the other hand, Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that aspect of income stands proved by the affidavit of respondent No.1. He, further, submitted that respondent No.1 was cross-examined on the aspect of income, but, nothing came out in her cross- examination which would help the case of the appellant. He, further, submitted that the case
He has, therefore, contended that the income assessed by the tribunal is just and proper and has prayed to reject the said contention.
concerned, it is an admitted position that the persons, who had issued the said certificates, were not examined by respondent No.1. In other words, the appellant had no opportunity of confronting the authors of those certificates on the aspect of income. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the tribunal ought not to have assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3000/-, solely relying on such certificates. However, in view of the fact that the deceased used to work as an agricultural help, it can reasonably be said that he must be earning Rs.15000/- annually. Hence, the contention with regard to income, raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant requires to be accepted.
6.0 As regards the aspect of age of the deceased is concerned, according to respondent No.1, the deceased was aged about 50 years, at the time of accident. However, she did not produce any evidence to substantiate her say. Here, it may be noted that the post-mortem note of the deceased mentions the age of the deceased as 60 years. Be that as it may, it can reasonably be said that, in any case, the deceased was aged not less than 50 years. Hence, it would be just and fair if the age of the deceased is considered to be 50 years.
7.0 At this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellant raised another contention with regard to multiplier applied by the tribunal and submitted that the tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier, since the multiplier is to be applied only in case of non-fatal injury and instead it ought to have applied the method of structured formula, as provided under the Second Schedule of the Act. In support of this submission, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of “NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. GURUMALLAMMA & ANR.”, reported in 2009(9) SCALE and of this Court in the case of “ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. DADU KHENGAR KOLI”, reported in 2009(0)AIJEL-HC 221786.
7.1 As against this, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 has supported the judgment and award and has submitted that the contention raised by the appellant requires to be rejected.
7.2 The Apex Court in “NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD.”(Supra) at Para-8, has observed as under:
“8. Multiplier stricto sensu is not applicable in the case of fatal accident. The multiplier would be applicable only in case of disability in non-fatal accidents, as would appear from the Note 5 appended to the Second Schedule. Thus, even if the application of multiplier is ignored in the present case and the income of the deceased is taken to be Rs.3,300/- per month, the amount of compensation payable would be somewhat between 6,84,000/- to Rs.7,60,000/-. As the Second Schedule provides for a structured formula, the question of determination of payment of compensation by application of judicial mind which is otherwise necessary for a proceeding arising out of a claim petition filed under Section 166 would not arise. The tribunals in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act is required to determine the amount of compensation as specified in the Second Schedule. It is not required to apply the multiplier except in case of injuries and disabilities.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
7.3 In view of the discussion in Para-5.4 herein above, considering the annual income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- and his age at 50 years, as set out in Schedule-II, respondent No.1 would be entitled to Rs.1,94,000/-. Out of this amount, 1/3 amount is required to be deducted as provided under the schedule. Thus, after deducting the same, respondent No.1 would be entitled to receive Rs.(1,94,000 - 64666)=1,29,334/- towards compensation.
7.4 The tribunal has awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Since, the same is in consonance with the Schedule Two, the same requires no interference. Thus, in all respondent No.1 shall be entitled to an amount of Rs.1,38,834/- rounding it off to Rs.1,39,000/- towards compensation.
8.0 At this juncture, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has granted the awarded amount along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, which is on higher side. He, further, submitted that the tribunal ought to have awarded the interest on the basis of rate of interest declared by the RBI at the prevalent rate. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on decisions of the apex Court in the case of “DHARAMPAL & ORS. VS. U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION”, AIR 2008 SC 2312 and in the case of “S. KAUSHNUMA BEGUM AND ORS. VS. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.”, reported in AIR 2001 SC 485.
8.1 Learned Counsel for respondent No.1 opposed the contention raised by the appellant, stating that the grant of interest is discretionary and it cannot be interfered with unless the discretion exercised is said to be arbitrary or capricious. In support of his submission, learned Counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:
(I) “SOVINTORG(INDIA) LTD. VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA, NEW DELHI”, reported in 1999(4)SCALE 659;
(II) “M/S. MANALAL PRABHUDAYAL VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.”, reported in 2006(8) SCALE 129;
(III) “RUKMANI DEVI AND ORS. VS. OM PRAKASH AND ORS.”, 1991 ACJ 3
(IV) “UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. VALJIBHAI VASHRAMBHAI MONPARA(DECD.) THROUGH HIS HEIRS”, 2004(3)GLR 2734.
8.2 In context of the above contention, it would be relevant to refer to the observation made by the Apex Court in a recent decision in the matter of “DHARAMPAL & ORS.”(Supra). In Para-
14 thereof, the Apex Court has observed as under:
“14. In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal position, we may now examine the facts of the present case. The accident in the present case had taken place on 1.9.2004 and the Tribunal had passed the award on 18.5.2005. rate at which the interest is to be awarded would normally depend upon the bank rate prevailing at the relevant time. Since in the case of State of Tamil Nadu V. State Transport Corpn. Ltd.(supra) decided in the month of April, 2005, the prevailing rate of interest on bank deposits was found and held to be 7.5 per cent per annum, we consider it appropriate to award the same rate of interest, as the same was the prevailing rate of interest at the date of passing of the award i.e. 18.05.2005 in the present case. Consequently, we hold that the appellants would be entitled to be paid interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of application till the date of payment.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
8.3 The ratio laid down in the said judgment by the Apex Court holds the ground, till date. I am, therefore, inclined to go with the same and the judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 will not help his case. Consequently, I accept the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant and respondent No.1 shall be entitled to receive interest on the awarded amount at the rate 9 per cent per annum, which was prevailing on the date of application.
9.0 In the result, the appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED. The original claimant-respondent No.1, herein, is entitled to receive Rs.1,39,000/- towards compensation along with interest at the rate of NINE per cent, from the date of application, till its realization. The judgment and award of the M.A.C.T.(Main), Kachchh at Bhuj, dated 04.05.2002, rendered in M.A.C.T. No. 389 of 2001, stands MODIFIED to the aforesaid extent. The balance amount be refunded to the appellant- insurance company along with interest, costs, if any. If the amount is already withdrawn by the original claimant, it shall be open to the appellant to recover the same from the original owner of the vehicle. No order as to costs.
Umesh/ (K.S. JHAVERI,J.)