Back
2022 Supreme(J&K) 749
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
PUNEET GUPTA, J.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Jabeena Begum & Ors. – Respondents
MA No. 381 Of 2012
Decided On : 13-07-2022
For the Petitioner: R.K. Gupta, Jugal Kishore Gupta.
For the Respondents: Vishnu Gupta, Nemo.
IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment reinforces the principle that compensation in motor accident claims must be just and reasonable, adhering to established legal precedents regarding income assessment, multipliers, and deductions for personal expenses.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS - Sections not explicitly mentioned but refers to principles established in Sarla Verma's case and general provisions of The Motor Vehicles Act - The court upheld the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, emphasizing the principles of just compensation as mandated by The Motor Vehicles Act. It confirmed the application of the multiplier method and deductions for personal expenses, aligning with established legal precedents.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arise from a common award by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu, concerning compensation claims following fatal accidents. The Insurance Company challenged the awards, arguing that the compensation was excessive, while the claimants sought enhancements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal's awards were justified and aligned with legal principles, particularly referencing the established guidelines from Sarla Verma's case. The court agreed with the Tribunal's calculations regarding income, deductions, and multipliers applied for compensation.
Issues: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive and whether the legal principles applied were appropriate in determining the compensation amounts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that compensation must be just and reasonable, affirming the Tribunal's application of the multiplier method and deductions for personal expenses based on the number of dependents. The court also highlighted the importance of future earnings in calculating compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal by the Insurance Company was dismissed, and the claimants' appeal was allowed, resulting in an amended award of Rs. 5 lacs along with interest.
JUDGMENT :
Puneet Gupta, J.
MA No. 381/2012
1. The appeals arise out of common award passed by the Tribunal and, therefore, are taken up together for disposal.
2. The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the award dated 03.04.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu in File No. 65/Claim on the grounds mentioned in the appeal.
3. The respondents-claimants have contested the appeal. It is brought to the notice of the court during the course of arguments that appeals 17 in number (CIMA No. 129/2013 and connected appeals) stand decided by this Court vide Judgment dated 28.07.2017. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants that the grounds raised in the appeal on legal point stands decided by the Judgment dated 28.07.2017 (supra) and has attained finality and, therefore, the present appeal which also arises out of the award passed by the Tribunal in the accident which is the subject matter of the appeal is required to be decided on the same lines.
4. Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant could not controvert the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents. The court is of the view that the Judgment passed by this Court vide dated 28.07.2017 (supra) squarely covers the legal issues raised in the present appeal and, therefore, no further discussion is required on those legal points. The legal issues raised in the present appeal stand decided as per the judgment referred above.
5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in any case is excessive and not just compensation as is the mandate of the provisions of The Motor Vehicles Act.
6. The perusal of the impugned award reveals that the claimants have been awarded Rs. 33,76,000/- along with interest as mentioned in the award. The Tribunal has also given directions regarding the proportion in which the compensation awarded is to be shared by the claimants. The deceased was an employee of NHPC and was getting salary of Rs. 25,953/- at the time of accident. The salary certificate produced by the claimants has been duly proved. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the principles laid down in Sarla Verma's case (AIR 2009 SC 3104) made addition to the income of the deceased at 30% as future earning.
7. The court finds no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect of the case. Similarly, the deduction of 1/5th of income towards personal expenses of the deceased cannot be faulted with keeping in view the number of dependents upon the deceased. The multiplier of 13 applied by the Tribunal is again as per the settled position of law and, therefore, the court is in agreement with the multiplier applied by the Tribunal in the case in hand. The compensation awarded under the heading funeral expenses @ Rs. 5000/-, loss of estate Rs. 10,000/-, loss of consortium to the Respondent No. 1 @ Rs. 10,000/- is definitely not on a higher side and therefore the same is upheld. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation and cannot be said to be excessive. Thus, the respondents-claimants are entitled to compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with the interest as granted by the Tribunal with other conditions mentioned therein.
8. Keeping in view the aforementioned discussion, the appeal is held to be without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. MA No. 363/2011 & MA No. 451/2011.
9. The appellant-Insurance Company and the respondents-claimants have challenged the award dated 15.11.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu in File No. 570/Claim on the grounds mentioned in the appeal.
10. The legal issues raised in the Appeal No. 363/2011 stand decided as per the decision of this court in appeals 17 in number (CIMA No. 129/2013 and connected appeals) vide Judgment dated 28.07.2017 so far as appeal filed by the Insurance Company is concerned.
11. Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned
