The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sukhwant Kaur & Ors.

1. Both these appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. These appeals arise out of the Awards passed by the learned Tribunal which arise out of the same incident.

2. MAC. APP. 237/2013 is preferred by the Appellant/ The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for setting aside the Award dated 29.11.2012 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACT case NO. 285/2010 (“impugned Award”) whereby the learned Presiding Officer accepted the claim and awarded a sum of Rs.4,93,200/- (Rupees Four Lacs Ninety Three Thousand and Two Hundred only) alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the present petition till the date of realization in favour of the claimants and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount within a period of one month and MAC. APP. 789/2014 is preferred by the Appellants/ Claimants for enhancement of compensation amount in terms of Award dated 29.11.2015 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACT case no. 285/2010.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY

3. Mr. Pankaj Seth learned counsel for the Appellant contended that learned Tribunal erred in observing that the alleged incident took place due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle. He further contended that in terms of dicta of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Pranay Sethi &Ors reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680, compensation under the head „Future Prospects‟ is to be paid by adding 25% of the assessed income of the deceased. Learned counsel fairly concedes that multiplier should be adopted in terms of dicta laid down in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs DTC & Anr reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 which is upheld in the judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra) whereby it was held that for the purposes of selection of multiplier, the age of the deceased has to be taken into account.

SUBMISSION OF THE CLAIMANTS

4. Mr. Anshuman Bal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/claimant contended that the learned Tribunal erred in ignoring the testimony of PW-3, Sh, Gurdev Singh (Proprietor of M/s B. S. Engineering Works) which proved that the deceased was working in his company as “Die Fitter on Lathe Machine” and was drawing a salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. He further contended that since the salary of the deceased was proved before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal ought not to have calculated the compensation taking into account the minimum wages for matriculates i.e. Rs. 4,150/- per month. Learned counsel while placing reliance on Pranay Sethi (supra) contended that compensation under the head „Loss of Consortium‟, „Loss of Estate‟ and „Loss of Funeral Expenses‟ needs to be modified/enhanced. Learned counsel further contended that in terms of dicta of Pranay Sethi (supra) since the deceased was of the age of 24 years at the time of the alleged incident, „Future Prospects‟ is to be paid by adding 40% of the assessed income of the deceased. Learned counsel further contended that for the purposes of selection of multiplier, the age of the deceased has to be taken into account. Learned counsel fairly concedes that in terms of judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra) compensation under the head „Love and Affection.‟ has to be deducted.

REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS

5. Mr. Pankaj Seth learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company in rebuttal contended that the learned Tribunal rightly disregarded the testimony of PW-3, Sh, Gurdev Singh (Proprietor of M/s B. S. Engineering Works) as it has come on record during the cross-examination of the witness that he was the real brother of the father of the deceased. COURT’S REASONING

6. Brief facts of the case as noted by learned Tribunal are as under:-

7. Mr. Pankaj Seth, learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company raised an argument that the learned Tribunal erred in observing that the alleged incident took place due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle. This Court has gone through the records in the present case and has also perused the impugned judgment. Perusal of the impugned judgment transpires that the learned Tribunal has very carefully dealt with the aspect of negligence and this Court is in conformity with the findings of the learned Claims Tribunal in relation to the issue of negligence. For the benefit of understanding, on the issue of negligence, the relevant portion of the impugned judgment reads as under:-

8. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants emphatically argued that the learned Tribunal erred in ignoring the testimony of PW-3, Sh, Gurdev Singh (Proprietor of M/s B. S. Engineering Works) which proved that the deceased was working in the company of PW-3 as Die Fitter on Lathe Machine and was drawing a salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. He further contended that since the salary of the deceased was proved before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal ought not to have calculated the compensation taking into account the minimum wages for a matriculate i.e. Rs. 4,150/-. This Court has gone through the evidence of the PW-3, Sh, Gurdev Singh (Proprietor of M/s B. S. Engineering Works) who during his cross examination has deposed that:- “I have not brought the registration record of proprietorship in the name and style of M/s. B. S. Engineering works. I have not brought the books of account maintained for this concern. I have not brought the salary disbursement register or the receipt / voucher in connection with any salary received by Sh. Manjit Singh from M/s. B. S. Engineering work. I have not issued any form -16A of income tax Act which would reflect the salary paid to Sh. Manjit Singh. I have not brought the appointment letter for appointment of Sh. Manjit Singh in this concern. It is wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely about the employment of Sh. Manjit Singh with M/s. B. S. Engineering work. It is wrong to suggest that I have made the false statement in order to extend benefit to the claimants of this petition. I am not a summoned witness. The father of Sh. Manjit Singh is my real brother. It is wrong to suggest that because of relationship with the family of the deceased 1have come today to depose before the court and make statement in favour of the claimants”

9. Perusal of the above testimony depicts that PW-3, Sh, Gurdev Singh (Proprietor of M/s B. S. Engineering Works) failed to produce any documentary evidence to support his statement that the deceased was paid a monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month. No document vis-à-vis appointment letter, salary certificate or Income Tax Return or Form-16 has been produced by the witness to substantiate his declaration. Moreover, during cross-examination, it has been brought on record that PW-3 is the real brother of father of the deceased and hence his testimony alone without support of any documentary proof cannot be relied upon to ascertain the income of the deceased. Accordingly, the finding of the learned Tribunal in calculating the income of the deceased by taking into account the minimum wages of a matriculate does not warrant any interference.

10. The other arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties are purely legal and based on the law settled by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra).