National Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Manager, Divisional Office, Circular Road, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. V. Smt. Sunita Devi widow of Shri Chaman Lal and Kamlesh Kumari minor daughter of Shri Chaman Lal through her next friend and natural guardian, her mother Smt. Sunita Devi and Smt. Drompti Devi wife of Shri Pritam Singh and Shri Goverdhan Singh son of Shri Sangat Ram

FAO/193/2009

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by the National Insurance Company Limited against various claimants who were awarded compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for injuries and deaths caused by a bus accident. The primary contention of the Insurance Company was that the bus was not operating within the terms of its route permit at the time of the accident. The court examined evidence including witness testimonies and documents like the route permit, but found insufficient proof to support the Insurance Company's claims. Additionally, the court addressed the method of calculating compensation, particularly the use of multipliers, and adjusted them based on established legal standards.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 817314 (HC-HIMACHAL_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Kamla Mangalal Vayani and Others vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others, Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, Govind Yadav vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd, Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar
• Laws Referred To: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: G R PALSRA; NAVEEN BHARDWAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVYANI SHARMA
• Keywords: Compensation; Death; Injury; Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; Multiplier; Route permit
• Section: 173

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO Nos.187 of 2009 alongwith FAO Nos.188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 240, 241, 242, 243, 78 and 107 of 2009. Date of decision: 17.04.2012. 1. FAO No.187 of 2009. National Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Manager, Divisional Office, Circular Road, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. … …Appellant Versus 1. Smt.Sunita Devi widow of Shri Chaman Lal, 2. Kamlesh Kumari minor daughter of Shri Chaman Lal through her next friend and natural guardian, her mother Smt.Sunita Devi, respondent No.1. 3. Smt.Drompti Devi wife of Shri Pritam Singh, All residents of village Baliandha, Post Office Lamba Thach, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, H.P. … …Respondents-Claimants 4. Shri Goverdhan Singh son of Shri Sangat Ram resident of village Khiuri, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (owner of the Bus No.HP-32B-6315). … … …Respondent-Owner. 2. FAO No.188 of 2009. National Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Manager, Divisional Office, Circular Road, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. … …Appellant Versus 1. Smt.Daultu Devi wife of Shri Khem Singh, resident of village Balyanda, Post Office Jarol, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, H.P. … …Respondent-Claimant 2. Shri Goverdhan Singh son of Shri Sangat Ram resident of village Khiuri, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (owner of the Bus No.HP-32B-6315). … … …Respondent-Owner. 3. FAO No.189 of 2009. National Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Manager, Divisional Office, Circular Road, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. … …Appellant 2 Versus 1. Shri Girdhari Lal son of Shri Purshotam, resident of village Kelti, Post Office Kandha, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P. … …Respondent-Claimant 2. Shri Goverdhan Singh son of Shri Sangat Ram resident of village Khiuri, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (owner of the Bus No.HP-32B-6315). … … …Respondent-Owner. 4. FAO No.190 of 2009. National Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Manager, Divisional Office, Circular Road, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. … …Appellant Versus 1. Shri Chhabe Ram son of Shri Bhagat, resident of village Kelti, Post office Kandha, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P. … …Respondent-Claimant 2. Shri Goverdhan Singh son of Shri Sangat Ram resident of village Khiuri, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (owner of the Bus No.HP-32B-6315). … … …Respondent-Owner. 5. FAO No.191 of 2009. National Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Manager, Divisional Office, Circular Road, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. … …Appellant Versus 1. Shri Devinder Kumar son of Shri Baldev Singh resident of village Samsal, Post office Ropri, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. … …Respondent-Claimant 2. Shri Goverdhan Singh son of Shri Sangat Ram resident of village Khiuri, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (owner of the Bus No.HP-32B-6315). … … …Respondent-Owner. 6. FAO No.192 of 2009. National Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Manager, Divisional Office, Circular Road, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. … …Appellant Versus 1. Smt.Urmila Devi widow of Shri Balak Ram, 2. Rajnish Thakur son of Shri Balak Ram, 3 3. Miss Poonam Thakur minor daughter of Shri Balak Ram through her next friend and natural guardian, her mother Smt.Urmila Devi, respondent No.1. All resident of village Rani-dhar, Illaqua Rian, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi HP … …Respondents-Claimants 4. Shri Goverdhan Singh son of Shri Sangat Ram resident of village Khiuri, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (owner of the Bus No.HP-32B-6315). … … …Respondent-Owner. 7. FAO No.193 of 2009. National Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Manager, Divisional Office, Circular Road, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. … …Appellant Versus 1. Smt.Dhyan Dassi wife of Shri Kamlu resident of village Gunas, Post office Shikawari, Illaqua Rian, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi. … …Respondent-Claimant 2. Shri Goverdhan Singh son of Shri Sangat Ram resident of village Khiuri, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (owner of the Bus No.HP-32B-6315). … … …Respondent-Owner. 8. FAO No.194 of 2009. National Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Manager, Divisional Office, Circular Road, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. … …Appellant Versus 1. Smt.Drompti Devi wife of Shri Kundan Lal, resident of village Dhyas, Post office Bagsaid, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, H.P. … …Respondent-Claimant 2. Shri Goverdhan Singh son of Shri Sangat Ram resident of village Khiuri, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (owner of the Bus No.HP-32B-6315). … … …Respondent-Owner. 9. FAO No.195 of 2009. National Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Manager, Divisional Office, Circular Road, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. … …Appellant Versus 4 1. Smt.Reshu Devi widow of Shri Rup Lal son of Shri Dhani Ram, 2. Miss Seema minor daughter of Shri Rup Lal, 3. Miss Kusum Lata minor daughter of Shri Rup Lal, 4. Mr.Vijay Thakur minor son of late Shri Rup Lal, 5. Mr.Jivan Thakur minor son of late Shri Rup Lal, 6. Miss Leena Thakur minor daughter of late Shri Rup Lal, 7. Miss Manisha @ Kiran Thakur minor daughter of late Shri Rup Lal, Minors through their natural guardian, next friend and mother Smt.Reshu Devi, respondent No.1. All residents of village and Post office Shikawari, Illaqua Rian, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, H.P. … …Respondents-Claimants 8. Shri Goverdhan Singh son of Shri Sangat Ram resident of village Khiuri, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (owner of the Bus No.HP-32B-6315). … … …Respondent-Owner. 10. FAO No.196 of 2009. National Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Manager, Divisional Office, Circular Road, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. … …Appellant Versus 1. Shri Karam Singh son of Shri Alamu Ram alias Alam Singh, resident of village Khunagi, Post office Bagsaid, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, H.P. … …Respondent-Claimant 2. Shri Goverdhan Singh son of Shri Sangat Ram resident of village Khiuri, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (owner of the Bus No.HP-32B-6315). … … …Respondent-Owner. 11. FAO No.197 of 2009. National Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Manager, Divisional Office, Circular Road, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. … …Appellant Versus 1. Miss Lata Thakur daughter of Shri Masat Ram, resident of village Nawani, Post office Devdhar, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P. … …Respondent-Claimant 2. Shri Goverdhan Singh son of Shri Sangat Ram resident of village Khiuri, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil 5 Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (owner of the Bus No.HP-32B-6315). … … …Respondent-Owner. 12. FAO No.240 of 2009. National Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Manager, Divisional Office, Circular Road, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. … …Appellant Versus 1. Shri Mohan Singh son of Shri Khem Singh resident of village Khamrada, Post office Bagsaid, Tehsil Thunag District Mandi, H.P. … …Respondents-Claimants 2. Shri Goverdhan Singh son of Shri Sangat Ram resident of village Khiuri, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (owner of the Bus No.HP-32B-6315). … … …Respondent-Owner. 13. FAO No.241 of 2009. National Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Manager, Divisional Office, Circular Road, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. … …Appellant Versus 1. Smt.Hansa Devi wife of Shri Nant Ram resident of village Thaltu (Gadhiman) P.O. Devdhar, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P. (mother of deceased). 2. Shri Nant Ram son of Shri Keshav resident of village Thaltu (Gadhiman) P.O. Devdhar, Tehsil Chachiot, District, H.P. (father of deceased) … …Respondents-Claimants 3. Shri Goverdhan Singh son of Shri Sangat Ram resident of village Khiuri, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (owner of the Bus No.-32B-6315). … … …Respondent-Owner. 14. FAO No.242 of 2009. National Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Manager, Divisional Office, Circular Road, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. … …Appellant Versus 1. Shri Manoj Kumar son of Shri Inder Singh resident of village Kandha Post office Kanda, Tehsil Thunag District Mandi, H.P. 6 … …Respondent-Claimant 2. Shri Goverdhan Singh son of Shri Sangat Ram resident of village Khiuri, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (owner of the Bus No.HP-32B-6315). … … …Respondent-Owner. 15. FAO No.243 of 2009. National Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Manager, Divisional Office, Circular Road, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. … …Appellant Versus 1. Smt.Indira Devi wife of Shri Amar Singh resident of village Mathiaya, Post office Bagsaid, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi (mother of the deceased). 2. Shri Amar Singh son of Shri Jatru Ram, resident of village Mathiaya, Post office Bagsaid, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi (father of the deceased) … …Respondents-Claimants 3. Shri Goverdhan Singh son of Shri Sangat Ram resident of village Khiuri, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (owner of the Bus No.HP-32B-6315). … … …Respondent-Owner. 16. FAO No.78 of 2009. National Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Manager, Divisional Office, Circular Road, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. … …Appellant Versus 1. Smt.Dropti Devi wife of Shri Hari Ram alias Dalari, resident of village Banayad, Post office Jarol, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, H.P. … …Respondent-Claimant 2. Shri Goverdhan Singh son of Shri Sangat Ram resident of village Khiuri, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (owner of the Bus No.HP-32B-6315). … … …Respondent-Owner. 17. FAO No.107 of 2009. National Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Manager, Divisional Office, Circular Road, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. … …Appellant Versus 1. Miss Lata Devi (minor) D/O Shri Khem Singh, resident of village Balyanda, Post Office Jarol, 7 Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, H.P. through her next friend and natural guardian Smt.Daultu Devi (mother), resident of village Balyanda, Post Office Jarol, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, H.P. … …Respondent-Claimant 2. Shri Goverdhan Singh son of Shri Sangat Ram resident of village Khiuri, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (owner of the Bus No.HP-32B-6315). … … …Respondent-Owner. Appeal(s) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. FAO Nos.187,188,107,192,193,194,195,78 of 2009 For the Appellant: Mrs.Devyani Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents- : Mr.G.R. Palsra, Advocate. Claimants For the Owner-Respondent: Mr.Anand Sharma, Advocate. FAO Nos.189,190,191,196,197,240,241,242 & 243 of 2009. For the Appellant: Mrs.Devyani Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents- : Mr.Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate. Claimants For the Owner-Respondent: Mr.Anand Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. All these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they arise out of the same accident. 2. Before dealing with the case in each appeal, I find that some of the appeals involve a very petty sum and therefore, do not require any adjudication by this Court. The appeals of the appellants are tabulated here-in-below:- 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 8 Sr.No. FAO No. Title Injury/Death case Compensation awarded 1. 187 of 2009 NIC. vs. Sunita Devi. Death Rs.4,33,000/- 2. 188 of 2009 NIC vs. Daultu Devi & Anr. Injury Rs.34,772/- 3. 189 of 2009 NIC vs. Girdhari Lal & Anr. Injury Rs.23,036/- 4. 190 of 2009 NIC vs. Chhape Ram & Ors. Injury Rs.23,238/- 5. 191 of 2009 NIC vs. Devender Kumar & Ors. Injury Rs.30,832/- 6. 192 of 2009 NIC vs.Urmila Devi & Ors. Death Rs.16,99,520/- 7. 193 of 2009 NIC vs.Dhian Dassi Death Rs.4,18,000/- 8. 194 of 2009 NIC vs.Drompti Devi Death Rs.3,94,000/- 9. 195 of 2009 NIC vs. Rashu Devi & Ors. Death Rs.8,01,880/- 10. 196 of 2009 NIC vs. Karam Singh & Anr Injury Rs.3,24,182/- 11. 197 of 2009 NIC vs. Lata Thakur & Anr. Injury Rs.1,54,508/- 12. 240 of 2009 NIC vs. Mohan Singh Injury Rs.42,119/- 13. 241 of 2009 NIC vs. Hansa Devi & Anr. Death Rs.3,94,000/- 14. 242 of 2009 NIC vs.Manoj Kumar Injury Rs.2,45,537/- 15. 243 of 2009 NIC vs.Indira Devi & Ors. Death Rs.4,18,000/- 16. 78 of 2009 NIC vs.Dropti Devi & Anr. Death Rs.4,16,000/- 17. 107 of 2009. NIC vs. Lata Devi & Anr. Injury Rs.25,000/- FAO No.188 of 2009, NIC vs. Smt.Daultu Devi & Another. FAO No.189 of 2009, NIC vs.Shri Girdhari Lal & Another. FAO No.190 of 2009, NIC vs. Shri Chhabe Ram & Another. FAO No.191 of 2009, NIC vs. Shri Devinder Kumar & Anr. FAO No.240 of 2009, NIC vs. Shri Mohan Singh & Another. FAO No.107 of 2009, NIC vs. Miss Lata Devi Devi & Anr. 3. These appeals at Serial Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 12 and 17 do not call for interference by this Court as only small sums of money have been awarded. These appeals are accordingly dismissed, but that would not preclude the Insurance Company from urging on the legality of each case on facts in the other appeals. 9 FAO No.187 of 2009, NIC vs. Smt.Sunita Devi & Others. 4. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,33,000/- to the petitioners for the death of Shri Chaman Lal. The point raised for determination in the appeal is that the bus was being driven in violation of the route permit in which eventuality, no liability could be apportioned on the Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the evidence of RW-2 Shri R.C. Kotwal, Advocate-cum-Investigator, RW-4 Shri Mahender Kumar Sharma, Surveyor, Ex.RW-4/A verification report and Ex.RW-4/B route permit. 5. I will now advert to the evidence on the record. There were five settled issues before the learned Tribunal. Issue No.4 related to the fact as to whether bus No.HP-32B-6315, involved in the accident, was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the route permit. The finding against this issue is “not proved”. While recording its findings, the learned Tribunal holds that RW-2 Shri R.C. Kotwal, RW-3 Deep Sood and RW-4 Mahender Kumar Sharma have stated in their evidence that the accidented bus was being driven in violation of the route permit, but no site plan/details of the route permit have been placed on the record or proved by the Insurance Company. The learned Tribunal holds that no person from the Road Transport Authority/State Government which granted the permit and familiar with 10 the route has been examined to prove the exact route on which the bus was being driven and was authorized to drive. 6. Adverting to the evidence of RW-1 Goverdhan Singh, the Court holds that it was stated by him that this accident had taken place within the area permitted by the route on which the bus was to ply. RW-2 R.C. Kotwal, who is Advocate-cum-Investigator, and RW-3 Deep Sood, did not establish this factum nor did the evidence of RW-4 Mohender Singh, who was a Surveyor of the Insurance Company, establish this fact. I advert to the evidence of the respondent. RW-1 Goverdhan Singh stated in his cross-examination that the accident took place between Chail Chowk and Jahal and that spot is within the prescribed route. RW-2 Shri R.C. Kotwal, Advocate-cum-Investigator states that he is an advocate by profession and also on the panel of investigators of the National Insurance Company. He was appointed by the Company to investigate the factum of the accident and the area of the operation of the bus. He conducted the investigation and found that the bus was on its way from Mandi to Janjehali and the accident took place at Salahar, whereas the route permit of the bus was from Jahal to Chail Chowk. According to him, the bus was on the wrong route. He had visited the site of accident 3-4 months after accident. RW-3 Deep Sood, who was the Administrative Officer of the National Insurance Company, says that the damage claim of the vehicle was 11 repudiated by the Company as it did not satisfy the conditions of the policy Ex.RW-1/A. He admits that he did not visit the place of accident. He then says, “I cannot say that area where accident has taken place is situated between Jahal and Chail Chowk.” RW-4 is Mahender Kumar Sharma, who was appointed as Surveyor of the Company. He says that according to his knowledge accident took place outside the approved route area. In cross-examination he admits that the place where the accident took place is between Jahal and Chail Chowk. He also admits that he never visited the site of the accident. Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel on the document Ex.RW-4/B which is route permit of the bus issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Mandi. The route area has been described/sanctioned as Jahal-Chail Chowk-Mandi. There is no site plan nor any attempt has been made by the Insurance Company to establish that the bus infact was being driven on a route which is not in consonance with the route permit Ex.RW-4/B. The best evidence in this case could have been to summon the concerned official from the Regional Transport Authority and then to verify as to whether the place where the accident took place was on its sanctioned route or not. No such exercise having been undertaken, I do not find any fault in the judgment of the learned Tribunal. This submission, therefore, is required to be rejected. 12 7. These very witnesses have appeared in all the connected appeals. Their testimony is verbatim statement of what has been recorded by me hereinbefore. No positive evidence on behalf of the Insurance Company has been brought on the record to show that the bus deviated from its sanctioned route or was being driven on a different route which, to repeat, could have easily been proved by (a) production of the route map from the Public Works Department Authorities or from the Transport Authority, (b) by proving that Ex.RW-4/B, which is the route permit, did not cover the site at which the accident occurred and which fact could have been proved by positive evidence from the Regional Transport Authority. 8. There is also no explanation as to why this evidence, when available, was not produced. So called deviation of the route has also not been established on the record of the case. 9. With respect to the plea that the bus was being driven without a valid route permit or in deviation of the route permit, all I need say is that besides producing the route permit, no other evidence has been placed on the record. In other words, there is no evidence on behalf of the Insurance Company to establish the plea which could very well have been established by summoning the record and the witness from the Regional Transport Authority. 13 10. In Kamla Mangalal Vayani and Others vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2010)12 SCC 488, the Court holds:- “7. In this case, the insurer produced a certified copy of the proceedings of the Registering Authority and Assistant Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore, dated 7.7.1990 to show that the application for registration of the vehicle filed by the third respondent, was rejected with an observation that it was open to the applicant to apply for registration in the appropriate class. But that only proved that on 7.7.1990, the vehicle did not have a permit. But that does not prove that the vehicle did not have a permit on 27.7.1990, when the accident occurred. It was open to the insurer to apply to the concerned transport authority for a certificate to show the date on which the permit was granted and that as on the date of the accident, the vehicle did not have a permit, and produce the same as evidence. It failed to do so. (p.489) The plea, therefore, not having been proved, deserves to be rejected. 11. Adverting to the award of compensation, the deceased was aged 20 years at the time of death on which multiplier of 17 has been used and the dependency was worked out at Rs.2000/- per month. The claimants are the widow, daughter and mother of the deceased who 14 were dependant on him. Learned counsel urges that the multiplier adopted is not in accordance with law. 12. In Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009)6 SCC 121, the multiplier used for the age group of 15 to 20 is 18. No other point has been raised before me. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned Tribunal. Appeal dismissed. FAO No.192 of 2009, NIC vs. Smt.Urmila Devi & Others. 13. The deceased was working as Head Teacher. His salary certificate Ex.PW-2/A has been proved on the record. His gross salary has been assessed at Rs.13,970/-. Out of this, 1/3rd has been deducted as personal expenses and multiplier of 15 used, considering his age to be 43 years at the time of death. In Sarla Verma’s case, multiplier of 14 has been adopted to this age group. The multiplier, therefore, is not correct. However, what I find is that the addition to the income of future prospective has not been considered, which in the present case should be 30% of the actual salary. In these circumstances, this appeal does not call for any interference and the same is dismissed. FAO No.193 of 2009, NIC vs. Smt.Dhyan Dassi & Another. 14. The multiplier adopted by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in this case is 17 as the deceased was aged about 24 years. The learned Tribunal was in clear error as the claim was made by the mother 15 of the deceased Smt.Dhyan Dassi, who was 60 years of age when she appeared in the witness box in 2008. It is undisputed before me that the accident occurred on 12.2.2007 when she would be around 57-58 years of age, in which event multiplier of 9 has to be adopted. The award is modified accordingly and it is directed that a multiplier of 9 shall be applied. FAO No.194 of 2009, NIC vs. Smt.Drompti Devi & Another. 15. The claimant Smt.Drompti Devi is the mother of the deceased who was undergoing training in Ayurvedic Pharmacy. The learned Tribunal assesses the dependency at Rs.2000/- per month and adopts the multiplier of 16 which is not permissible. The deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of accident. What I find from the evidence is that the claimant was aged about 45 years when the evidence was recorded in 2008 and the accident had taken place in 2007 he would be around 43-44 years age, a multiplier of 14 is to be adopted and it is directed accordingly. The award is modified accordingly. FAO No.195 of 2009, NIC vs. Smt.Reshu Devi & Others. 16. The claimants are widow, sons and daughters of the deceased, who was aged about 44 years. Multiplier of 15 has been adopted which should be 14 as laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra). He was working as a Work Inspector in Sub Division HPPWD since 2007. Ex.PW-2/A shows his gross salary as Rs.6473/- per month which is not subjected to tax. According to 16 Sarla Verma’ case an addition of 30% has to be made which the learned Tribunal has not made in the present case. I find no infirmity in the assessment made and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The non-addition of the salary would counter balance whatever alleged excess assessment has been made. FAO No.196 of 2009, NIC vs. Shri Karam Singh & Another. 17. The injured in this case has claimed compensation for suffering disability, which, according to him, has reduced his chances of leading a normal life. The injured in this case states that he was working as a shopkeeper and pursuing agriculture pursuits. Ex.PW-3/A is the disability certificate, which has been proved on record by PW-3 Dr.Sandeep Vaidya, Medical Officer, Zonal Hospital, Mandi. He says that the petitioner cannot use his right upper limb properly and has issued the Certificate proving temporary disability to the extent of 50%. In cross- examination he admits that this disability can be reduced after sometime. The method for assessing damages in cases of injuries have laid down by the Supreme Court in Govind Yadav vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., 2012 ACJ 28. 18. I find from the award that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,88,000/- for diminishing of future prospectus, considering his monthly income to be Rs.3000/-, a multiplier of 16 has been adopted which is not a proper method for assessing 17 income or loss. True, the petitioner has suffered injuries and has also undertaken medical treatment, but there is nothing on record to establish that he has been totally crippled for undertaking any evocation. In these circumstances, the assessment made cannot be sustained. I, therefore, deem it proper that taking into consideration the medical treatment, injuries suffered by the petitioner as also nature of the injuries, a sum of Rs.90,000/- would be sufficient to compensate him for the injuries sustained. The award is modified accordingly. FAO No.197 of 2009, NIC vs. Miss Lata Thakur & Another. 19. The petitioner in this case is injured and had sustained 20% permanent disability as proved by Ex.PW-4/A, which has been proved by Dr.Sandeep Vaidya, who is Member of the Medical Board who examined the petitioner. She has suffered disability of 20% of injuries sustained to her dorsal spine and has been asked to avoid lifting of heavy loads etc. It is also proved on the record that the petitioner has to undergo treatment at PGI, Chandigarh. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,54,508/-. I consider it to be just and fair compensation in the present case. Appeal dismissed. FAO No.241 of 2009, NIC vs. Smt.Hansa Devi & Others. 20. The claimants in this case are mother and the father of the deceased. He was aged 19 years at the time of the accident. Multiplier of 16 has been 18 adopted. It is urged by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the assessment is wrong as the multiplier should be commensurate with the age of the claimants who in this case are the mother and father of the deceased and not of the deceased. I do not find that the age of either of them has been established on the record and in these circumstances it is not possible for this Court to interfere in this appeal. No other point is raised in this appeal. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed accordingly. FAO No.242 of 2009, NIC vs. Shri Manoj Kumar & Another. 21. The petitioner in this case has claimed compensation for the injuries and the subsequent disablement which he suffered. Disability certificate Ex.PW-4/A has been proved on the record by Dr.Sandeep Vaidya, PW-4 who was one of the Members of the Board which examined disability of the petitioner. He states that the disability is 30% in relation to the right lower limb. The petitioner was treated at PGI, Chandigarh as is evident from the cross-examination. However, what is submitted for determination before me is that the compensation awarded is accessibly high. PW-3 Manoj Kumar claimant states that he was treated in the hospital and he also remained admitted in PGI, Chandigarh from 12.2.2007 to 16.2.2007. Because of the injuries sustained, he was suffered a set back in his studies. I do not find from the evidence that the injury is permanent in nature, but at the same time, I 19 cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner will not be able to enjoy amenities of life. The compensation awarded is on the higher side. 22. Adverting to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd, 2010 ACJ 2867 (SC) and Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar, 2011 ACJ 1(SC), I find total lack of evidence and the method used by the learned Tribunal cannot stand scrutiny of law. A sum of Rs.1,94,400/- was awarded by the learned Tribunal as disability compensation, which in this case cannot sustain. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant as Rs.3000/- per month on the basis of Minimum Wages Act and since the age of the injured was 26 years, multiplier of 18 was adopted. This is not the way of assessing income which had to be assessed under each head as held by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar’s case supra. There is no denying the fact that the injured has lost income, therefore, he would be entitled for compensation. 23. In these circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things that the award is modified. The learned Tribunal awards a sum of Rs.2,45,537/- as compensation. This amount is excessive. The amounts awarded by the learned Tribunal for medical treatment, convenience etc., are not disturbed and are left intact. In other words, a sum of Rs.51,137/- so far as the compensation for injuries etc. is concerned, I find 20 that the learned Tribunal holds that according to the pleading, the income of the injured was Rs.10,000/- per month which he was deriving as a shopkeeper, but this has not been proved on the record. His income has rightly been assessed as Rs.3000/- per month, but the multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal is wrong. The disability certificate Ex.PW-4/A shows that the disability is temporary. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal was wrong in assuming that his earning capacity has been crippled throughout his life and the award cannot be sustained. On this account total compensation including medical expenses is reduced to Rs.one lac. No other point raised before me. Award is modified accordingly. FAO No.243 of 2009, NIC vs. Smt.Indira Devi & Others. 24. The claimants in this case are the mother and father of the deceased, who was aged about 25 years, he was not an Income Tax assessee and was doing tuition work. Multiplier of 17 has been used. Age of dependants has not been proved which would have been recorded for the purposes of selection of the multiplier. In these circumstances, it becomes very difficult for this Court to reduce the quantum as pleaded by the Insurance Company. No other point has been raised before me. Appeal dismissed. FAO No.78 of 2009, NIC vs. Smt.Dropti Devi & Another. 25. The claimant in this case is the mother of the deceased who in this case was working in the petrol 21 pump and also used to perform agriculture work. The learned Tribunal after deducting 1/3rd as personal expenses has assessed the dependency of the deceased as Rs.2000/- per month. The age of the deceased at the time of accident was 22 years and multiplier of 17 has been applied. The multiplier adopted is not correct as the claimant is aged about 43 years, therefore, the multiplier is reduced to 15. No other point raised before me. The award is modified accordingly. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. 26. All these appeals are accordingly disposed of. April 17, 2012. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge. "