- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PARVESH & OTHERS
Factual and Procedural Background
The matter includes C.M. No.6740-CII-2018, in which a delay of five days in filing the appeal was condoned on the basis of an affidavit; the application was disposed of. FAO No.1747 of 2018 is an appeal filed by the insurer against an award dated 02.11.2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh. The claim arose from the death of Parveen Kumar on 17.01.2017 at about 3:40 p.m., when the motorcycle he was driving collided with a Haryana Roadways bus (registration HR-68-A-9978) insured by the appellant. The deceased was 38 years old. The Tribunal assessed his monthly income at ₹12,000, applied a multiplier of 15 and awarded overall compensation of ₹23,68,000 (with a 40% increase in future prospects) and ₹1,00,000 under conventional heads. The insurer challenged the income assessment and the conventional-head component.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased's monthly income at ₹12,000 instead of adopting the lower minimum wage for a semi-skilled labourer (₹8,649.20 as per the Haryana notification).
- Whether the award of ₹1,00,000 under the conventional heads (and an alleged excess of ₹30,000 under that head) was excessive and liable to be reduced.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The deceased was a semi-skilled labourer and, under the Haryana notification, minimum wages for semi-skilled labour were ₹8,649.20 per month; therefore the Tribunal should have taken income on the lower side.
- The conventional heads award of ₹1,00,000 was excessive (the appellant referred to an excess of ₹30,000 under the conventional head) and should be reduced.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered the record placed before it, noting that documentary evidence (J-Form placed on record as Ex.P7) showed that the deceased and his brother had a 2/7th share in land measuring 227 kanals 7 marlas. Having regard to this evidence (Ex.P7) and the totality of circumstances, the Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's income at ₹12,000 per month was upheld. The court held that the appellant's reliance on minimum wages for semi-skilled labour was misplaced because there was evidence regarding the deceased's income beyond the statutory minimum. With respect to the claimed excess under the conventional head (₹30,000), the court declined to interfere, observing the circumstances of young minor children and a widow who had lost their husband/father at the age of 38. On these bases the court found no ground to disturb the impugned award.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED. The application for condonation of delay (C.M. No.6740-CII-2018) was allowed and disposed of. The impugned award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal stands unimpaired.
Implications: The direct effect is that the Tribunal's compensation award remains in force. The opinion does not discuss broader legal consequences or establish a new precedent.
C.M.No.6740-CII-2018 For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 05 days in filing the appeal, is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. FAO No.1747 of 2018 (O&M) The appellant-Insurance Company is aggrieved of the award dated 02.11.2017 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in a claim petition filed by the claimants, i.e., widow, minor children and mother on account of death of Parveen Kumar, who on 17.01.2017 at 3.40 p.m while driving a motorcycle had met with an accident with Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration no. HR-68-A-9978, insured by the Insurance Company. The deceased at the time of death was 38 years of age and was having 8 kilas of
1 of 3 FAO No.1747 of 2018 (O&M) {2} land and 8 kilas on contract. It was averred that he was earning a sum of `45,000/- per month and FIR in this regard was also lodged against the driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal on the basis of evidence brought on record assessed the income of deceased as ` 12,000/- per month and by applying the multiplier of 15 awarded the compensation of `23,68,000/- with 40% increase in future prospects and under the conventional head, awarded `1,00,000/-. Mr. R.K.Bashamboo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that once the Tribunal has treated the deceased to be a semi-skilled labour and as per the notification of Govt. of Haryana, the semi-skilled labour minimum wages were ` 8,649.20 and therefore, income of the deceased should have been taken on the lower side and a sum of `1,00,000/- under the conventional heads is on the higher side and thus, urged this Court for setting aside award under challenge. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submissions of Mr. Bashamboo, for, concededly, deceased Parveen Kumar along with his brother was having 2/7th share in the total land measuring 227 kanals 7 marlas. J-From has been placed on record as Ex.P7. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, ie., Ex.P7, the Tribunal had assessed the income of deceased as `12,000/- per month. There would have been some force in the argument of Mr. Bashamboo, had there not been any
2 of 3 FAO No.1747 of 2018 (O&M) {3} evidence with regard to income of the deceased. It is in these circumstances, income of deceased was assessed as per the minimum wages prescribed in the Act, therefore, the aforementioned argument is wholly misplaced and is hereby rejected. With regard to excess of `30,000/- under the conventional head, I am of the view that in such circumstances, Insurance Company could not have filed the appeal as they should be mindful of the fact that minor children and young widow had lost their father/husband at the age of 38 years. No ground is made out for interference in the impugned award. The appeal stands dismissed. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE April 04, 2018 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
Alert