Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

A.O. No.196 of 2019

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Pramod Kumar Bailwal, Advocate for the

appellant.

Mr. Siddhant Manral, Mr. Karmanya Pande

and Mr. Tanmay Tiwari, Advocates for the

claimants/respondent nos.1 & 2.

2. The present Appeal from Order has been filed by the appellant–Insurance Company assailing the judgment and award dated 28.02.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IVth Additional District Judge, Dehradun in M.A.C.P. No. 215 of 2015, whereby learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of the claimants on account of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicular

accident.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Tribunal has committed a gross error of law by failing to deduct the tax component from the assessed income of the deceased and in relying upon the income tax return for the assessment year 2015–16, which was filed posthumously by the claimant. It is argued that the said return reflected an income figure more than double of the previous two years, which could not have been the actual income of the deceased. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in applying a multiplier of 13 whereas, considering that the deceased was aged 50 years, 11 months and 11 days, the appropriate multiplier ought to have been 11, as per the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. It is also argued that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the accident was a result of contributory negligence of both drivers involved, and therefore, the quantum of compensation ought to have been suitably reduced. Learned counsel submits that, for these reasons, the award deserves to be set aside or

suitably modified.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 submits that the deceased had not completed 51 years of age and was running 50 years at the time of the accident; hence, the adoption of the multiplier of 13 is fully justified in light of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2 placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shashikala & Others Vs. Gangalakshmamma & another, reported in (2015) 9 SCC 150. Paragraph no.16 of the said judgment is extracted below:

“16. Insofar as appropriate multiplier, the date of birth of the deceased as per driving licence was 16-6-1961. On the date of accident i.e. 14-12-2006, the deceased was aged 45 years 5 months and 28 days and the Tribunal has taken the age as 46 years. Since the deceased has completed only 45 years, the High Court has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 45 years and adopted multiplier of 14 which is the appropriate multiplier and the same is maintained. Total loss of dependency is calculated at Rs 16,82,310 (Rs 1,20,165 × 14).”

5. Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2 submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that the age of the deceased should be taken on the basis of the nearest completed year and that the multiplier applicable to that age bracket should be adopted. He submits that learned tribunal, therefore, committed no error in taking the age of the deceased as 50 years and adopting the multiplier of 13.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, has held that while assessing compensation, reasonable guesswork is permissible so as to ensure that the dependents of the deceased are adequately compensated and the principle of “just compensation” does not mean a perfect or arithmetical computation but a fair, reasonable, and equitable assessment keeping in view the loss suffered by the dependents. The Tribunal