MOHAMMAD AFZAL BEIGH Vs. KULDEEP KUMAR
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Mohammad Afzal Beigh
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This review petition has been filed by the respondent No.3- National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the review petitioner) seeking review of the judgment dated 29.06.2020 passed by this Court in the above titled case.
(2.)The present proceedings arise out of a motor vehicular accident that took place on 27.05.2010 resulting in death of one Abdul Aziz Beigh, who, at the time of accident, was working as an Assistant Sub Inspector in Jammu and Kashmir Police. His legal heirs/dependents filed a claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantnag, and the same was decided by the Tribunal in terms of its award dated 26.03.2014, whereby a sum of Rs.3,64,000/along with interest @ 6% per annum was awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants with a direction that the same shall be payable by the review petitioner herein. The award was called in question by the claimants/dependents of the deceased by way of an appeal and the same came to be disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 29.06.2020, whereby the compensation in favour of the claimants was enhanced to Rs.21,12,181/along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. The Insurance Company-review petitioner was held liable to pay the awarded amount. Against this judgment, the Insurance Company has filed the instant review petition on the following grounds:
(i) That the observation of the Court in the impugned judgment that there is no legal impediment in taking on record and considering the last pay certificate produced by the appellants during the course of the proceedings before the Court, is not in accordance with the law because the insurance company has not been given an opportunity to rebut the last pay certificate of the deceased and that it amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record;
(ii) That as per communication dated 07.05.2010, that was produced by the appellants before the Court, the deceased was retiring on 30.06.2010 and there were no chances of future increase in his salary and, therefore, 15% increase in salary ought not to have been taken into account while assessing the income of the deceased;
(iii) That the Court has not considered the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court in CMAM No.116/2017 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nasima Begum and Ors and in New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Gulzara Bibi and Ors., wherein it has been held that the salary received or receivable by the claimants for a period of seven years should be deducted from total compensation;
(iv) That while assessing the compensation on account of loss of dependency, the Court has not deducted the income tax from the monthly salary of the deceased, which is against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.
(3.)I have heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and the learned counsel for the claimants. I have also gone through the grounds of the review petition and the record of the case.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.