Allowed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Vimla Bhatt and Others

Uttarakhand HC13 Jul 2017AO/228/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand modified an insurance compensation award. It discarded an unproven certificate regarding the deceased's temple income as incredible. Holding the proper provable income at Rs. 24,000/month post-expenses, the Court recalculated compensation to Rs. 4,67,000 plus interest, directing investment of Rs. 2 lakhs for the minor daughter.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order modified; compensation fixed at Rs. 4,67,000 plus 6% interest; Rs. 2 lakhs invested for minor; remainder released.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Vimla Bhatt… — Banking and Recovery | Uttarakhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Appeal from Order No. 228/2016

¶3

United India Insurance Company Ltd. …. Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

Smt. Vimla Bhatt & Others

¶6

.… Respondents

¶7

Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Akshay Latwal, Advocate, for the claimants/respondents 1 & 2. Mr. Prabhat Bohra, Advocate, for the respondent no. 3.

¶8

July 1 3 th , 2017

¶9

Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

¶10

Having heard the submissions of either party, it transpires that Mr. Ramesh Chandra Bhatt lost his life on 17.7.2015 in an accident occurred with the vehicle no. UK05-TA-1339 wherein Mr. Bhatt was boarded as a passenger. The vehicle met with an accident and as a consequence, Mr. Ramesh Chandra Bhatt lost his life leaving behind him his widow and a minor daughter, who initiated the claim petition no. 11/2015 which was adjudicated by the learned Tribunal granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,11,000/-.

¶11

Insurance Company has challenged the quantum of the award on the ground that Rs. 1000/- per month income in addition has been taken into consideration by the Tribunal which the deceased allegedly used to earn by rendering his services in Jageshwar Temple Committee. The Tribunal has drawn this decision on income of Rs. 1000/- per month on the basis of a certificate, which is available as paper no. 6Ga/13 in the lower court record. Such certificate has been issued by the Manager, Jageshwar Temple Management Committee, Almora with illegible signature and it shows the remuneration made to Mr. Ramesh Chandra Bhatt in lieu

¶12

¶13

of his services with effect from 17.7.2014 to 17.7.2015. This certificate was never be proved so that the Counsel of the insurer could have an opportunity to cross-examine the person who had issued such certificate.

¶14

On an apparent look, this Court feels that this certificate lacks veracity because for the alleged services rendered by the deceased w.e.f. 17.7.2014 to 17.7.2015, it has been shown that he was paid 7 times/on 7 days in the month of May 2015 only. So, this is quite incredible and the Court discards such certificate.

¶15

This way, the income of the deceased was only Rs. 3,000/- per month, the salary which he used to draw from his employer Gurukul Academy, as discussed by the learned Tribunal in paragraph 18 of its judgments. On deducting one-third towards the personal expenses, the base income for evaluating the compensation comes to Rs. 24,000/- and on applying the multiplier of 18, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,32,000/-. Compensation of Rs. 20,000/- granted towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards the cremation is not disturbed by this Court. So, the net amount comes to Rs. 4,67,000/-.

¶16

The compensation of Rs. 4,67,000/- shall be paid by the insurance company along with 6 per cent simple annual interest with effect from the date of presentation of the petition till the date of actual payment.

¶17

Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order is modified to the extent indicated above.

¶18

Registry shall forthwith remit the compulsory statutory amount along with the interest accrued thereon to the Tribunal concerned.

¶19

Out of the compensation amount rupees two lakhs shall be invested in the TDR/FDR in the name of minor daughter Km. Tanisha Bhatt, as has been directed

¶20

¶21

by the Tribunal as well, and rest of the amount shall be released in favour of Smt. Vimla Bhatt.

¶22

Let the LCR be sent back.

¶23

(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶24

Prabodh

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Vimla Bhatt and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Vimla Bhatt and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Shiv Kumari Bansal Vs Sandeep Kumar

Tola and Another Vs Smt Kirshani Devi and Another

Mohar Singh and Another Vs Smt Kirshani Devi and Another

Shankar Dutt Joshi and Another Vs Tej Ram Sagar and Others

S.s. Rawat and Another Vs K.h.das

Smt Laxmi Devi and Others Vs Vipin Kumar Dandriyal and Others