Pramila Kunwar vs. Nandan Kumar

Facts

The claimants/appellants filed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the death of Amresh Prasad Gupta. The deceased, a pillion rider, died on 08.09.2017 due to injuries sustained in an accident on 20.08.2017 when a truck dashed his scooty. The claimants sought Rs. 27,67,810/-, stating the deceased was a Fitter earning Rs. 410/- per day and was 40 years old. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,45,000/- with 6% interest. The appellants argued the Tribunal erred in assessing notional income and failed to award loss of consortium to all claimants. The insurance company contended the award was just and proper, and the salary slip was not legally issued.

Held

The Court held that the Tribunal's finding that the certificate (Ex. P/16) was erroneous solely due to the absence of GST and TIN numbers was incorrect, especially since the insurance company failed to adduce evidence to rebut its validity. The Court found that the deceased was indeed working as a Fitter and earning Rs. 410/- per day. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Tribunal had not awarded compensation for loss of consortium to all claimants, which necessitated reconsideration. Applying the principles from Supreme Court judgments, the Court re-computed the compensation. The income was enhanced from Rs. 54,000/- to Rs. 1,47,600/- annually. Future prospects, deduction for personal expenses, and multiplier were adjusted. Crucially, compensation for loss of parental consortium was awarded to appellants No. 2 and 3, who had received none previously. The total compensation was enhanced from Rs. 7,75,000/- to Rs. 20,11,000/-, granting an additional amount of Rs. 12,36,000/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the notional income of the deceased, considering the evidence of his employer and the certificate (Ex. P/16) proving his daily earning of Rs. 410/-, despite the absence of GST and TIN numbers on the document? 2. Whether the learned Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation for loss of consortium to all the claimants? Contentions of the Appellants/Claimants: The appellants argued that the Tribunal wrongly discarded the certificate (Ex. P/16) proving the deceased's income of Rs. 410/- per day, as it was proved by his employer. They also contended that the Tribunal failed to award loss of consortium to all eligible claimants and prayed for enhancement of compensation. They relied on Supreme Court judgments in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors., and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Contentions of the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company: The insurance company argued that the Tribunal passed a just and proper award. They contended that the salary slip was not issued in accordance with law, and therefore, the Tribunal rightly discarded it. They submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.