Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Akila & Ors.

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of. MAC.APP. 260/2015 and CM APPL.4616/2015 (stay)

3. Challenge is to the award/judgment dated 19th December, 2014 (in M.A.C. Petition No.50/2013 Unique ID No.02402C0141762013) assessing compensation of Rs.8,96,328/- for the death of son of the Respondents No.1 and 2 owing to the vehicle insured with the appellant.

4. The contention of the counsel for the Appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in following the rate of minimum wages and has wrongly assessed future prospects by adding 50%. 2015:DHC:2445

5. In the impugned judgment, the age of the deceased at some places is mentioned as 23 years and at other as 28 years at the time of the accident. Though, a reference is made in para 8 to the mark sheet of High School Examination but there is no mention of the date of birth recorded therein. The Appellant also, in the grounds of appeal has not stated what according to the record was the age of the deceased, whether 23 years or 28 years. It is well nigh possible that “28” is a typographical error for “23”.

6. I do not find anything wrong in the compensation being assessed at the rate of minimum wages. The counsel also has not cited anything as to on what other basis should the compensation have been assessed. As far as award of addition of 50% towards future prospects is concerned, I have enquired from the counsel that when the demise is at a young age and when the possibility of the deceased getting fixed wages/permanent employment cannot be said to have been exhausted on account of age, what is wrong with assessing the future prospects by adding 50%, which is the maximum permissible as per the dicta of the Supreme Court. After all, such a young person even if at the time of accident had no fixed income / permanent employment, could have got one. Considering the spirit of the legislation under which the claim has been awarded, the benefit ought to be given to the victim.

7. The counsel for the Appellant has drawn attention to Clause 6 to the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides for assessment of compensation on the basis of notional income of Rs.15,000/per annum to those who had no income prior to accident.

8. In my opinion, the said provision would not be applicable when the deceased, at the time of accident, was 23/28 years of age. The said provision appears to be designed for assessment of compensation with respect to the injuries, fatal or otherwise, of such persons who have never earned in the past, say house wives or who for the reason of advanced age or for any other reason had / have no possibility of having any income on the basis of which compensation can be assessed. The same cannot be said of the deceased in the present case.

9. The only other contention of the counsel for the Appellant is that in the impugned judgment, the multiplier of 17 has been wrongly applied according to the age of the deceased when it should have been applied according to the age of the mother of the deceased.

10. The impugned judgment records the age of the mother of the deceased at the time of the accident as 38 years. There is nothing in the grounds of appeal to suggest that the same was at any time or even now challenged by the Appellant. As per the age of 38 years of the mother of the deceased, the multiplier applicable would be of 15 and not 17.

11. Issue notice to the Respondents No.1 and 2 limited to this aspect only (the challenge on all other grounds is dismissed) by all modes including Dasti, on steps to be taken within two weeks, returnable before the Registrar on 18.08.2015.

12. The compensation as per multiplier of 15 be deposited in accordance with the award / judgment of the Tribunal in the Tribunal only within four weeks of today and be released to the Claimants.

13. The counsel for the Appellant at this stage seeks direction for keeping of the compensation as per the multiplier of 15 even in a fixed deposit with payment of interest thereon only to the Claimants. It is contended that it is a standard direction in all matters and which remained to be issued in the present case.

14. The Appellant is given liberty to bring the said fact to the notice of the Tribunal and it is for the Tribunal to consider the said aspect.

15. It is clarified that in the event of the appeal being dismissed, the Appellant shall remain liable to pay the balance amount of the award with interest as awarded.