SHAHID SHAFI AND ORS. V. FAROOQ AHMAD NAJAR AND ORS. (UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED)

Mac App/49/2021

AI Insights

test from LW

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 13284 (HC-NA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 16-09-2021

Judgement Text

" \n \nMac Appeal No.49/2021 \nMac Appeal No.48/2021 \n \nPage 1 of 20 \n \nIN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND \nLADAKH AT SRINAGAR \nReserved on: 19.12.2024 \nPronounced on: 27.12.2024 \nMac Appeal No.49/2021 \nMac Appeal No.48/2021 \nSHAHID SHAFI & OTHERS \nRUBEENA & ORS. \n \n \n ...APPELLANT(s) \nThrough: - Mr. A. A. Wani, Advocate. \nVs. \nFAROOQ AHMAD NAJAR & ORS. \n …RESPONDENT(S) \nThrough: - Mr. Aatir Kawoosa, Advocate, with \n \n \nMr. Areeb Kawoosa, Advocate. \n \n \nMr. Sajad Gulzar, Advocate. \nCORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. \nJUDGMENT \n1. \nBy this common judgment, afore-titled two appeals \narising out of two different awards relating to a single road \ntraffic accident, are proposed to be disposed of. \n2. \nIt appears that on 12.01.2015, deceased Mohammad \nShafi Malik and his wife, deceased Naza, were travelling in \na vehicle bearing registration No.JK09A-2565 (TATA Sumo) \nfrom Gugloosa Kupwara towards Srinagar. On reaching \nVillage Ranji on National Highway, the vehicle in question \ncollided with a Load Carrier bearing registration No.JK01W-\n1652, that was proceeding from the opposite direction. As \na result of the accident, both the above named persons \n\n \n \nMac Appeal No.49/2021 \nMac Appeal No.48/2021 \n \nPage 2 of 20 \n \nsuffered fatal injuries resulting in their death. The accident \nis alleged to have been caused due to the composite \nnegligence of the drivers of the aforesaid two vehicles. \n3. \nThe legal representatives/claimants of the deceased \nMohammad Shafi Malik and his wife Mst. Naza, filed two \nseparate claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims \nTribunal, Srinagar (for short “the Tribunal”), claiming \ncompensation from the owners, drivers and the insurers of \nthe two offending vehicles. The learned Tribunal vide two \nseparate awards dated 29.06.2021, which are impugned in \nthe present appeals, held that the deceased had died as a \nresult of the road traffic accident that was caused due to \nthe rashness and negligence on the part of the drivers of \nthe two offending vehicles. It was also found that the \noffending vehicle bearing No.JK09A-2565 was insured with \nrespondent United India Insurance Company Ltd. whereas \nthe offending vehicle bearing No.JK01W-1652 was insured \nwith respondent National Insurance Company Ltd. at the \nrelevant time. The learned Tribunal further found that there \nwas no violation of the terms and conditions of the policies \nof insurance on the part of the owners of the offending \nvehicles. \n\n \n \nMac Appeal No.49/2021 \nMac Appeal No.48/2021 \n \nPage 3 of 20 \n \n4. \nWhile calculating the compensation in the claim \npetition relating to the death of deceased Mohammad Shafi \nMalik, who was working as an Orderly in Tehsil Office, \nKupwara, and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.19,200, \nthe learned Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency to \nthe \nclaimants \nat \nRs.27,02,644/ \nand \nafter \nadding \ncompensation under the conventional heads, the total \ncompensation in the amount of Rs.28,52,644/ was \nawarded in favour of the claimants and the same was made \npayable by the two insurance companies in equal \nproportions. The Tribunal further held that the awarded \namount shall be shared in equal proportions by claimants \nNo.2 to 4, who happen to be appellant Nos.2 to 4 in Mac \nApp No.49/2021. The claimants 1 & 5, who happen to be \nappellant Nos.1 and 5, were not given any share out of the \nawarded sum. \n5. \nIn the claim petition relating to death of Mst. Naza, \nwho was a house wife, the learned Tribunal assessed her \nnotional income as Rs.4000/ per month and after giving \nincrease of 40% on account of future prospects, her \nmonthly notional income was taken as Rs.5600/. On this \nbasis, the learned Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency \nat Rs.7,16,736/ and after adding compensation under the \nconventional \nheads, \nthe \nTribunal \nawarded \ntotal \n\n \n \nMac Appeal No.49/2021 \nMac Appeal No.48/2021 \n \nPage 4 of 20 \n \ncompensation of Rs.8,66,736/ in favour of the claimants. \nThe same was made payable by the two insurance \ncompanies in equal proportions. Claimant No.4, who \nhappens to be appellant No.4 in Mac App No.48/2021, was \nnot given any share in the awarded sum which was directed \nto be shared in equal proportions amongst claimant Nos.1 \nto 3, who happen to be the appellant Nos.1 to 3 herein. \n6. \nThe award dated 29.06.2021 passed by the learned \nTribunal in respect of death of two deceased persons has \nbeen challenged by the appellants on the grounds that the \nlearned Tribunal has not awarded the expenses for \ntransportation of the dead bodies. It has been further \ncontended that the compensation on account of loss of \nconsortium to appellants Shahid Shafi and Mohammad \nMaqbool Malik has not been awarded by the Tribunal. It \nhas also been contended that the learned Tribunal has not \ntaken into account the fact that with effect from 1st \nJanuary, 2016, 7th Pay Commission Recommendations \nwere adopted in the case of Government employees of the \nJammu and Kashmir and deceased Mohammad Shafi \nMalik, who was a Government employee, was expected to \nget the benefit of the pay revision had he remained alive. It \nhas also been contended that the appellant Shahid Shafi \nhappen to be the son of both the deceased persons and was \n\n \n \nMac Appeal No.49/2021 \nMac Appeal No.48/2021 \n \nPage 5 of 20 \n \ndependent upon the deceased at the time of their death, as \nsuch, the learned Tribunal was not justified in depriving \nhim from a share in the compensation and in calculating \nthe compensation by excluding his dependency on the \ndeceased persons. It has been further contended that the \nincome of the deceased Naza, for the purposes of \ncalculation of compensation has been assessed by the \nlearned Tribunal on a lower side without any justification. \nIt has been further contended that appellant Mohammad \nMaqbool Malik, who happens to be the brother of deceased \nMohammad Shafi Malik, is also entitled to share in the \namount of compensation. It has been further contended \nthat the learned Tribunal has erroneously deducted the \nincome tax from the income of deceased Mohammad Shafi \nMalik, even though his income did not fall under the taxable \nrange. It has also been contended that the learned Tribunal \nhas adopted an incorrect multiplier while assessing the \ncompensation in the case of deceased Mohammad Shafi \nMalik. On the basis of these grounds, the appellants have \nchallenged the impugned awards and sought enhancement \nof the compensation. \n7. \nI have heard learned counsel for the parties and \nperused record of the case including record of the Tribunal. \n\n \n \nMac Appeal No.49/2021 \nMac Appeal No.48/2021 \n \nPage 6 of 20 \n \n8. \nThe first ground which has been urged by learned \ncounsel for the appellants is that while calculating the \nincome of deceased Mohammad Shafi Malik, the Tribunal \nwas obliged to take into consideration the fact that he was \nexpected to get revised salary with effect from 01.01.2016 \nin \nview \nof \nadoption \nof \n7th \nPay \nCommission \nRecommendations in the case of Government employees of \nthe Jammu and Kashmir State. In this regard, it is to be \nnoted that deceased Mohammad Shafi Malik died on 12th \nJanuary \n2015. \nIt \nis \nan \nadmitted \nfact \nthat \nthe \nrecommendations of 7th Pay Commission were adopted in \nthe case of Government employees of J&K State with effect \nfrom 01.01.2016. In the considered view of this Court, the \nbenefit of revision of pay scales which takes place after the \ndeath of a victim in a motor vehicular accident cannot be \ngiven unless the revision of pay scales has been given \nretrospective effect so as to cover the period during which \nthe death of the victim had taken place. The subsequent \nprospective revision of pay scales would have no effect upon \nthe assessment of compensation in favour of the \ndependents of a victim of motor vehicle accident. While \ngranting the benefit of future prospects by enhancing the \nincome of a deceased by certain percentage, the factors \nrelating to pay revision are taken care of. In fact, this aspect \n\n \n \nMac Appeal No.49/2021 \nMac Appeal No.48/2021 \n \nPage 7 of 20 \n \nof the matter has been conclusively determined by the \nSupreme Court in the celebrated judgment in the case of \nSarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation \nand another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It would be apt to refer to \nParas 45 to 47 of the said judgement which are reproduced \nas under: \n45. The assumption of the appellants that the actual \nfuture pay revisions should be taken into account for \nthe purpose of calculating the income is not sound. \nAs against the contention of the appellants that if the \ndeceased had been alive, he would have earned the \nbenefit of revised pay scales, it is equally possible \nthat if he had not died in the accident, he might have \ndied on account of ill health or other accident, or lost \nthe employment or met some other calamity or \ndisadvantage. The imponderables in life are too \nmany. Another significant aspect is the non-\nexistence of such evidence at the time of the \naccident. \n46. In this case, the accident and death occurred in \nthe year 1988. The award was made by the Tribunal \nin the year 1993. The High Court decided the appeal \nin 2007. The pendency of the claim proceedings and \nappeal for nearly two decades is a fortuitous \ncircumstance and that will not entitle the appellants \nto rely upon the two pay revisions which took place \nin the course of the said two decades. If the claim \npetition filed in 1988 had been disposed of in the \nyear 1988-1989 itself and if the appeal had been \ndecided by the High Court in the year 1989-1990, \nthen obviously the compensation would have been \ndecided only with reference to the scale of pay \napplicable at the time of death and not with \nreference to any future revision in pay scales. \n47. If the contention urged by the claimants is \naccepted, it would lead to the following situation: \nthe claimants could only rely upon the pay scales in \nforce at the time of the accident, if they are prompt \nin conducting the case. But if they delay the \nproceedings, they can rely upon the revised higher \npay scales that may come into effect during such \npendency. Surely, promptness cannot be punished \n\n \n \nMac Appeal No.49/2021 \nMac Appeal No.48/2021 \n \nPage 8 of 20 \n \nin this manner. We therefore reject the contention \nthat the revisions in pay scale subsequent to the \ndeath and before the final hearing should be taken \nnote of for the purpose of determining the income for \ncalculating the compensation. \n9. \nA Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bajaj \nAllianz Gen. Insu. Co. Ltd vs. Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din and \nanother, 2019 ACJ 3132, has also held that the benefit of \nrevision and enhancement of salary of the victim of accident \ncan be taken into consideration, if the revision of pay scale \ntakes place though subsequent to the death but with \nretrospective effect covering the date of death of such \nvictim. The Court further held that the subsequent \nprospective revision of pay scales resulting in enhancement \nof salary of the deceased, which takes place after the death \nof the deceased employee cannot be considered and the said \nincrease in salary would subsume in head “loss of future \nprospects”. \n10. In view of the foregoing position of law, the contention \nof the appellants that the learned Tribunal has not taken \ninto account the pay revision while calculating the income \nof the deceased Mohammad Shafi Malik is without any \nmerit. This is so because the deceased had died prior to the \ndate when the 7th Pay Commission recommendations were \ngiven effect by the Government. \n\n \n \nMac Appeal No.49/2021 \nMac Appeal No.48/2021 \n \nPage 9 of 20 \n \n11. The other contention that has been raised by the \nappellants is that the appellant Mohammad Maqbool Malik \nhas not been granted any share in the awarded sum in the \nclaim petition pertaining to deceased Mohammad Shafi \nMalik. The same is also without any substance for the \nreason that appellant Mohammad Maqbool Malik happens \nto be the brother of deceased Mohammad Shafi Malik, who \nas per the evidence on record was employed in the bank \nand was earning his own income. In the presence of sons \nand daughters of deceased Mohammad Shafi Malik and \nkeeping in view the fact that appellant Mohammad Maqbool \nMalik was having his own income and was not dependent \nupon the income of deceased Mohammad Shafi Malik, he \ncannot claim a share in the awarded sum. \n12. The contention of the appellants that they are entitled \nto transportation charges of the dead bodies of the deceased \nis also without any merit because the appellants/claimants \nhave not led any evidence before the Tribunal to this effect. \nIn the absence of any evidence on this aspect, the Tribunal \ncould not have granted any additional compensation on \naccount of expenses on transportation of dead bodies. The \nfuneral expenses awarded to the claimants/appellants \nunder \nthe \nconventional \nhead \nwould, \nunder \nthe \n\n \n \nMac Appeal No.49/2021 \nMac Appeal No.48/2021 \n \nPage 10 of 20 \n \ncircumstances, cover the expenses of transportation of \ndead bodies of the victims as well. \n13. Similarly, the contention of the appellants that the \nTribunal has adopted a lower multiplier while assessing the \nloss of dependency in the case relating to death of \nMohammad Shafi Malik, is also without any merit. The \ncontention raised by the appellants is based upon the \nassumption that the deceased was aged 38 years at the time \nof his death, as has been mentioned in the claim petition \nand the postmortem report. However, it has come in the \nstatement of PW Mohammad Ashraf Bhat, Record Keeper \nthat as per the service record, the date of birth of the \ndeceased was 27th February, 1971. Thus, the deceased was \naged 44 years at the time of his death and not 38 years, as \nhas been claimed by the appellants. The Tribunal, by taking \nthe age of the deceased as 44 years, has correctly applied \nthe multiplier of 14. The contention of the appellants in this \nregard is, therefore, rejected. \n14. The next contention relates to the assessment of loss \nof dependency of the claimants in the case relating to \ndeceased Mohammad Shafi Malik. It has been contended \nthat his income was not falling in the taxable range and \nbecause he had left behind 4 dependents, as such, the \n\n \n \nMac Appeal No.49/2021 \nMac Appeal No.48/2021 \n \nPage 11 of 20 \n \nTribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd of his income towards \nhis personal expenses and, in fact, only 1/4th of his income \nwas eligible to be deducted. \n15. If we have a look at the impugned award in the case \nrelating to deceased Mohammad Shafi Malik, his monthly \nsalary as per the salary certificate proved by PW \nMohammad Ashraf Bhat Record Keeper, was Rs.19,200 \nwith his date of birth as 27th February, 1971. A perusal of \nthe salary certificate on record of the Tribunal shows that \nthe deceased was subscribing Rs.2000/ per month towards \nGP fund. The Tribunal, in the instant case, has, after \nadding 30% of the income of the deceased towards future \nprospects and deducting income tax in the amount of \nRs.9952/, calculated the annual income of the deceased at \nRs.2,89,568. \n16. The procedure adopted by the learned Tribunal is not \nin accordance with law. As per the ratio laid down by the \nSupreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the actual \nincome of the deceased less income tax, should be the \nstarting point for calculating the compensation. It has been \nfurther held in the said case that to this actual salary less \ntax, there should be addition of future prospects. In the \ninstant case, the learned Tribunal has added future \n\n \n \nMac Appeal No.49/2021 \nMac Appeal No.48/2021 \n \nPage 12 of 20 \n \nprospects and thereafter deducted the income tax, which is \ncontrary to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in \nSarla Verma’s case (supra). \n17. When we go by the ratio laid down by the Supreme \nCourt in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), which provides that \nstarting point for calculating the annual income of a victim \nwould be gross salary less income tax, we have to start with \ngross salary of the deceased Mohammad Shafi Malik, which \nhas been proved to be Rs.19,200/ per month. His annual \nsalary would come to Rs.2,30,400/. When we deduct the \nGP fund contribution of the deceased, which is Rs.2000/ \nper month (Rs.24,000/ per annum), the taxable income of \nthe deceased Mohammad Shafi Malik would come to \nRs.2,06,400/ per annum. As per the rates of income tax \nthat were prevailing at the relevant time, no income tax was \npayable upto the annual income of Rs.2,50,000/. \nTherefore, the income of the deceased was not within the \ntaxable range and, as such, no deduction on account of \nincome tax was to be made to the annual income of the \ndeceased. The monthly income was, therefore, required to \nbe taken as Rs.19,200/ and by giving 30% increase \n(Rs.5760) on account of future prospects, the same would \ncome to Rs.24,960/ and his annual income would come to \nRs.2,99,520/. \n\n \n \nMac Appeal No.49/2021 \nMac Appeal No.48/2021 \n \nPage 13 of 20 \n \n18. Another error that has been committed by the learned \nTribunal while calculating the loss of dependency of \ndeceased Mohammad Shafi Malik is that 1/3rd of the \nincome of the deceased towards his personal expenses has \nbeen deducted by holding that he had left behind only three \ndependents by excluding appellant Shahid Shafi from the \nlist of dependents on the ground that he was employed in \nplace \nof \ndeceased \nMohammad \nShafi \nMalik \non \ncompassionate basis. \n19. The dependency of a deceased has to be assessed at \nthe time of his/her death and not on the basis of \nsubsequent events. If subsequent events are taken into \naccount, then in a case where a claim petition remains \npending, say for five or ten years, by that time if all \ndependents of the deceased would start earning income, \nthen it would lead to a situation where no compensation on \naccount of loss of dependency would become payable to the \nlegal heirs of the deceased. The logic of taking into account \nsubsequent events while determining the dependency of a \nvictim does not appear to the sound, though it would \ncertainly be a factor while determining the shares of the \ndependants out of the awarded sum. Here it would also be \npertinent to mention that it is the extent of dependency of \na claimant upon the income of the victim which determines \n\n \n \nMac Appeal No.49/2021 \nMac Appeal No.48/2021 \n \nPage 14 of 20 \n \nhis/her share in the awarded sum. The rules or the law of \ninheritance applicable to the claimants have no bearing \nupon the apportionment of the awarded compensation. The \ndependency of the victim of a motor vehicular accident has \nto be taken into consideration at the time when his/her \ndeath takes place. Admittedly, at the time of death of both \nthe deceased, who happen to be the parents of appellant \nShahid Shafi, he was unemployed and had barely attained \nthe age of majority. Therefore, the Tribunal could not have \nexcluded the appellant Shahid Shafi from the list of \ndependents of the deceased. \n20. Once it is held that the deceased had left four \ndependents, namely, Shahid Shafi, Suhail Shafi, Rubeena \nand Rozia Shafi, as their sons/daughters, as per the law \nlaid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case \n(supra), and reiterated in National Insurance Company \nvs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680, deduction \n@1/4th of the income of the deceased towards his personal \nand living expenses was to be resorted to. The Tribunal by \ndeducting 1/3rd of income of the deceased, has fallen into a \ngrave error. \n21. Similarly, the learned Tribunal has erred in depriving \nappellant Shahid from compensation on account of \nparental consortium on the ground that he was major \n\n \n \nMac Appeal No.49/2021 \nMac Appeal No.48/2021 \n \nPage 15 of 20 \n \nearning son of the two deceased. The law laid down by the \nSupreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), as \nexplained in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu \nRam & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, clearly provides that loss \nof consortium would include parental consortium which is \ngranted to a child upon premature death of a parent for loss \nof parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, \nguidance and training. It cannot be stated that once a child \nattains the age of majority and starts earning income, he \ndoes not need any parental aid, affection or guidance. Even \na major son or daughter is entitled to parental consortium \nupon death of his/her parents @Rs.40,000/. \n22. That \ntakes \nus \nto \nthe \ncontentions \nregarding \nassessment of income of deceased Naza. In the instant case, \nthe learned Tribunal, as already stated, has assessed the \nnotional income of deceased Naza, who happened to be a \nhouse wife, as Rs.4000/ and after giving increase of 40% \ntowards future prospects, her monthly income has been \nassessed as Rs.5600/. The learned Tribunal has, despite \nnoticing that contribution of a house wife is significant as \nshe performs role of a daughter, wife, sister and mother at \ndifferent stages of her life, assessed her notional income as \nRs.4000/ per month only. While holding so, the learned \nTribunal relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the \n\n \n \nMac Appeal No.49/2021 \nMac Appeal No.48/2021 \n \nPage 16 of 20 \n \ncase of Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi & Ors. Vs. Kasam \nDaud Kumbhar & Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 237. \n23. The notional income that has been assessed by the \nlearned Tribunal, in the instant case, appears to be grossly \ninadequate. In Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi’s case \n(supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with a matter \nwhere the death of the house wife had taken placed in the \nyear 1990. It is in those circumstances that the Supreme \nCourt assessed the income of deceased house wife as \nRs.4000/ per month. In the instant case, death of the \ndeceased has taken place in the year 2015 i.e. 25 years \nthereafter. Therefore, the Tribunal was expected to take into \naccount the factors like increase in cost of living during \nthese 25 years, which the Tribunal has omitted to do. \n24. The Supreme Court has, in the case of Latta Wadhwa \n& Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, 2001 (8) SCC 197, while \nemphasizing the contribution of a house wife towards her \nhousehold, observed that in the absence of the requisite \ndata and taking into consideration the multifarious services \nrendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, \neven on a modest estimation, value of such services should \nbe assessed at Rs.3000/ per month and Rs.36000/ per \nannum in the case of housewives in the age group of 34 to \n\n \n \nMac Appeal No.49/2021 \nMac Appeal No.48/2021 \n \nPage 17 of 20 \n \n59. The judgment was rendered in the year 2001 and the \ndeath of the deceased, in the instant case, has taken place \nin the year 2015. Having regard to the steep rise of inflation, \ndevaluation of rupee and increase in cost of living, the \nincome of a house wife in the year 2015 could have, by no \nstretch of reasoning, been taken as Rs.4000/ per month \nonly. After taking into consideration the aforesaid factors, \nthe income of the deceased Naza was required to be taken \n@Rs.6500/ per month. \n25. Apart from the above, as per the Second Schedule to \nMotor Vehicles Act, which was applicable at the relevant \ntime, the income of a non-earning spouse had to be taken \nas 1/3rd of the income of her husband if the evidence in that \nregard is available. In the instant case, as already stated, \nthe income of deceased Mohammad Shafi Malik, the \nhusband of deceased Naza, has been proved to be \nRs.19,200/ per month at the time of his death. Therefore, \neven if we apply the Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, \nincome of deceased Naza at the time of her death would \ncome to around Rs.6500/ per month. Thus, monthly \nincome of deceased Naza has to be taken as Rs.6500/ and \nnot Rs.4000/ per month, as has been done by the Tribunal. \nAfter giving 40% rise to the said income of deceased Naza \n\n \n \nMac Appeal No.49/2021 \nMac Appeal No.48/2021 \n \nPage 18 of 20 \n \non account of future prospects, her monthly income would \nwork out to be Rs.9100/. \n26. In the face of what has been discussed hereinabove, \nthe compensation is each of the cases is revised in the \nfollowing manner: \nMac App No.49/2021 filed in respect \nof death of Mohammad Shafi Malik: \nCompensation assessed by the Tribunal \nS. No. \nHeadings \nAmount awarded \n1 \nAnnual Income \n=Rs.2,89,568/ \n2 \n1/3rd \ndeduction \non \naccount \nof \npersonal and living expenses \n=Rs.96,522/ \n3 \nLoss of dependency \n=1,93,046x14=27,02,644/ \n4 \nLoss \non \naccount \nof \nparental \nconsortium (appellant Nos.2 to 4 only) \n=1,20,000/ \n5 \nFuneral expenses \n=15,000/ \n6 \nLoss of estate \n=15,000/ \nTotal compensation awarded \n=28,52,644/ \n \nModified/enhanced compensation \nS. No. \nHeadings \nAmount awarded \n1 \nAnnual income \n=2,99,520/ \n2 \n1/4th deduction on account of \npersonal and living expenses \n=Rs.74,880/ \n3 \nLoss of dependency \n=2,24,640x14=31,44,960/ \n4 \nLoss \non \naccount \nof \nparental \nconsortium (appellant Nos.1 to 4) \n=1,60,000/ \n5 \nFuneral expenses \n=15,000/ \n6 \nLoss of estate \n=15,000/ \nTotal compensation awarded \n=33,34,960/ \nMac App No.48/2021 filed in respect \nof death of Mst. Naza: \nCompensation assessed by the Tribunal \nS. No. \nHeadings \nAmount awarded \n1 \nMonthly Income \n=Rs.5600/ \n2 \n1/3rd \ndeduction \non \naccount \nof \npersonal and living expenses \n=Rs.1867/ \n3 \nLoss of dependency \n=3733x12x16=7,16,736/ \n4 \nLoss \non \naccount \nof \nparental \nconsortium (appellant Nos.2 to 4 only) \n=1,20,000/ \n5 \nFuneral expenses \n=15,000/ \n6 \nLoss of estate \n=15,000/ \nTotal compensation awarded \n=8,66,736/ \n\n \n \nMac Appeal No.49/2021 \nMac Appeal No.48/2021 \n \nPage 19 of 20 \n \n \nModified/enhanced compensation \nS. No. \nHeadings \nAmount awarded \n1 \nAnnual income \n=9100x12=1,09,200/ \n2 \n1/4th deduction on account of \npersonal and living expenses \n=Rs.27300/ \n3 \nLoss of dependency \n=81,900x16=13,10,400/ \n4 \nLoss \non \naccount \nof \nparental \nconsortium (appellant Nos.1 to 4) \n=1,60,000/ \n5 \nFuneral expenses \n=15,000/ \n6 \nLoss of estate \n=15,000/ \nTotal compensation awarded \n=15,00,400/ \n27. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed and the \nawards passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the \naforesaid extent. \n28. Thus, it is provided that appellant Nos.1 to 4 in Mac \nApp No.49/2021 shall be entitled to the enhanced \ncompensation of Rs.33,34,960 (rupees thirty-three lacs \nthirty-four thousand nine hundred and sixty only) along \nwith interest @7.5 per annum from the date of filing of the \nclaim petition till final realization of the awarded sum. \nAppellant No.5-Mohammad Maqbool Malik shall not be \nentitled to any compensation. Appellant No.1-Shahid Shafi, \nwho is now settled in life as per the evidence on record as \nhe has already been gainfully employed, shall be paid an \namount of Rs.4.00 lacs (rupees four lacs) out of the awarded \nsum and the balance amount shall be shared equally by \nappellant Nos.2 to 4. \n29. Similarly, the appellant in Mac App No.48/2021 are \nheld entitled to enhanced compensation in the amount of \n\n \n \nMac Appeal No.49/2021 \nMac Appeal No.48/2021 \n \nPage 20 of 20 \n \nRs.15,00,400 (rupees fifteen lacs four hundred only) along \nwith interest @7.5 per annum from the date of filing of the \nclaim petition till final realization of the awarded sum. \nAppellant Shahid Shafi shall be paid to an amount of \nRs.4.00 lacs (rupees four lacs) out of the awarded sum and \nthe balance amount shall be shared by appellant Nos.1 to \n3 in equal proportions. \n30. The liability to satisfy both the awards shall be shared \nequally by two respondent Insurance Companies. \n31. The appeals shall stand disposed of in above terms. \n32. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Tribunal for \ninformation. \n \n (Sanjay Dhar) \n Judge \nSRINAGAR \n27 .12.2024 \n\"Bhat Altaf-Secy\" \nWhether the order is reportable: Yes \n \nMohammad Altaf Bhat\nI attest to the accuracy and\nauthenticity of this document\n30.12.2024 08:55\n"