Back
2019 Supreme(UK) 488
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
Appeal From Order No. 103 of 2010
SMT. SHASHI RASTOGI & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY & ORS. – Respondent
WITH Appeal From Order No. 429 of 2009
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
SMT. SHASHI RASTOGI & ORS. – Respondent
Decided on : 26.02.2019
For the Appellant :Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. B.S. Bisht, Advocate holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate
For the Appellant :Mr. B.S. Bisht, Advocate holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate
Headnote:
(A) Compensation Claim – During the pendency of the claim petition, one of the dependent got married – So, she cannot be said to be dependent – Learned Tribunal had rightly applied the deduction factor of income as “1/4” in place of “1/5”. (Paras 4, 6, 9, 10)
(B) Compensation Claim – The age of deceased was 51 years – Therefore, as per the Motor Vehicle Act, multiplier of 11 was rightly used. (Para 4, 6, 9, 10)
¼v½ izfrdj nkok & okn yEcu ds nkSjku ik¡p vkfJrksa esa ls ,d vkfJr dk fookg gks x;k Fkk & blfy, mls vkfJr ugha ik;k x;k & bl izdkj ekuuh; vf/kdj.k }kjk vk; dk vuqeku 1@5 dh txg 1@4 yxkuk] mfpr ik;k x;kA ¼izLrj 4] 6] 9] 10½
¼c½ izfrdj nkok & e`rd dh vk;q 51 o”kZ Fkh & blfy, eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj 11 dk xq.kkad] mfpr ik;k x;kA ¼izLrj 4] 6] 9] 10½
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Alok Singh, J.
1. The facts and questions of law in both the appeals are common, therefore, both are taken together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Brief facts of the present appeals are that deceased Arvind Kumar Rastogi along with Shashi Rastogi was going from Rudrapur to Bilaspur on his scooter bearing no. UP 04 C 1652. Near Arvind Memorial Library, a truck bearing no. USZ 9466 dashed him. Driver of said truck was driving the truck rashly and negligently. In the accident, Arvind Kumar Rastogi succumbed to his injuries. Legal heirs of Arvind Kumar Rastogi filed claim petition. Learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and granted compensation of Rs. 14,50,000/- against Insurance Company. Feeling aggrieved, claimants approached this Court for enhancement and Insurance Company approached this Court for setting aside the award.
3. Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate for the claimants argued that there were five dependents on deceased, therefore, deduction factor from income of deceased should be used “1/5" in place of “1/4".
4. From perusal of record, it transpires that Ms. Diksha Rastogi got married during the pendency of the claim petition, so she cannot be said to be dependent. Therefore, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC), the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the deduction factor of income as “1/4" in place of “1/5".
5. On the other hand, Mr. B.S. Bisht, Advocate for the Insurance Company has argued that at the relevant time, the driver did not possess valid driving license.
6. DW1 – Sarvesh Kumar, Junior Clerk, RTO, Bareilly in his examination stated that license of Driver Qayyum was valid from 12.04.2007 to 11.04.2010 for driving Heavy Goods Vehicle while accident occurred on 21.04.2007. From perusal of record, it can safely be said that Driver Qayyum had valid driving license for Heavy Goods Vehicle. DW1 Driver Qayyum had also produced the copy of his driving license, during the course of trial, which was proved by him.
7. So I do not find force in the argument of Mr. B.S. Bisht, Advocate for the Insurance Company.
8. Mr. B.S. Bisht, Advocate for the Insurance Company further contends that multiplier of 10 should be used in place of 11.
9. Admittedly, the age of deceased was 51 years, therefore, as per the Motor Vehicle Act, multiplier of 11 was rightly used.
10. No other point is raised by either of the parties, therefore, both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.
11. Let the lower court record be sent back and copy of this judgment be placed in the connected appeal. Amount, if any, deposited with the Registry be sent to the MACT concerned within two months from today.
