Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2558 (RAJ)

Suman v. Haryana State Road Transport Corporation

2011-11-24

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—Claimants have preferred this appeal dissatisfied with quantum of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Additional District Judge No.1, Kishangarhbas, in MAC Case No.99/98, with prayer that compensation be enhanced suitably. Learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.8,15,800/- to claimants against their claim of Rs.37,26,000/-, in a death claim. 2. Learned counsel for appellants has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another – (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), to assail the award on two counts. His first contention is that deduction of 1/3rd made by learned Tribunal from the income of the deceased for his own expenses, is not proper. As per above judgment of the Supreme Court and keeping in view that there are five dependents, such deduction should have been normally 1/4th. His second contention is that the deceased, at the time of the accident, was 32 years of age and was posted as Junior Engineere at Municipal Council, Ajmer, and, as such, he was a permanent employee of the Municipal Council, Ajmer, which is a local body, and service therewith is akin to the government service, and, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, 50% should have been added for future prospects, in the income of deceased for computation of award. Apart from that, learned counsel contended that learned Tribunal was wholly unjustified in excluding the city allowance of Rs.60/-, medical allowance of Rs.100/-, and not including therein the house rent allowance of Rs.750/- which was at the rate of 15% of the basic pay, from/in the gross salary of the deceased. The total salary that was proved from the evidence was Rs.5965/- (Rs.5000 basic pay, Rs.800 dearness allowance, Rs.65/- city allowance, Rs.100 medical allowance) excluding the house rent allowance. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the house rent allowance is also part of the salary and it should be included in the salary for the purpose of computation of the award. In support of this argument, learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma and Others vs. Bachitar Singh and Others – MACD 2011 (SC) 141. In support of this argument, learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma and Others vs. Bachitar Singh and Others – MACD 2011 (SC) 141. In case the house rent allowance of Rs.750/- is included in the salary, then the total salary comes to Rs.6715/-. 3. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the appeal and argued that the house rent allowance is not part of salary and it should be excluded from it for computation of award and may not be taken as its part. It was argued that it is an old case where accident took place in the year 1998 and the judgment of Sarla Verma, supra, was delivered in 2009, therefore, it should not be applied to the present case. 4. On hearing learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondents and perusing material on record, I find that contention of learned counsel for respondents that judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, cannot be applied in the present case, is without any merit. Even if in the case of Sarla Verma, supra, the accident took place on 18.04.1988 and judgment of the Supreme Court therein was delivered in 2009. The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on the High Courts and Tribunals throughout the country. As per ratio of aforesaid judgment and in view of the fact that there are five dependents, only 1/4th should have been deducted for own expenses of the deceased and 50% should have been added towards future prospects. The question of future prospects has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Salra Verma, supra, and held that about 50% can be added to the actual salary by taking note of the future prospects. The deceased at the time of accident was working as Junior Engineer and he was only 32 years of age and presently after recommendation of sixth pay commission, the salary would have at least become double. The house rent allowance has to be treated as part of the salary as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Sharma, supra, wherein the Supreme Court has relied on its earlier judgment in Raghuvir Singh Matolya and Others vs. Hari Singh Malviya and Others – MACD 2009 (SC) 401 : (2009) 15 SCC 363 = 2009(1) CCR 607 (SC). The Supreme Court in Raghuvir Singh, supra, has held that dearness allowance and house rent allowance should be included for computation of income of the deceased, and after adding the house rent allowance of Rs.750/- to the salary, the total salary of the deceased comes to Rs.6715/- (5965+750). Accepting the salary of the deceased to be Rs.6715/- and adding thereto element of future prospects at the rate of 50%, the total monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.10,073/-. As per ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, 1/4th has to be deduction from the total income, for own expenses of the deceased, and after deducting the same, the net amount for loss of dependency would come to Rs.7555/- per month. At the age of 32, in the view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, the multiplier of 16 is applied instead of 17 as applied by the Tribunal. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants towards loss of dependency comes to Rs.14,50,560/-. The amount of Rs.27,000/- awrded to the claimants as compensation on non-pecuniary heads, is maintained. Total compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs.14,77,560/- (1450560+27000). 5. However, keeping in view the principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in General Manager Kerala SRTC vs. Susamma Thomas – (1994) 2 SCC 176 = RLW 1995(2) SC 19, this amount appears to be somewhat on higher side as per current rate of interest of nationalized banks, which is between 8 to 9 percent. If the said amount is invested in a scheme of nationalized bank, it would fetch monthly interest of Rs.9850/-, which is much more than the amount of Rs.7,555/- determined as monthly contribution of the deceased to the family. The Supreme Court in Sarla Dixit (Smt.) and Another vs. Balwant Yadav and Others – (1996) 3 SCC 179 , Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited vs. S. Rajapriya and Others – 2005 (2) TAC 305 (SC) = RLW 2005(3) SC 390 and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Road Transport Corporation Limited vs. K.S. Bindu and Others – 2006 (1) TAC 1 (SC). 6. 6. The Supreme Court in Para 7 of Sarla Dixit, supra, has observed that while chance of multiplier is determined by two factors, namely, the rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy and the age of the deceased or of the claimant, whichever is higher. The ascertainment of the multiplicand is a more difficult exercise. Indeed, many factors have to be put into the scales to evaluate the contingencies of the future. All contingencies of the future need not necessarily be baneful. Considering the fact that deceased was more or less on a stable job and do the prospects of advancement in future career the proper higher estimate of monthly income as gross income to be taken as average gross future income of the deceased and deducting at least 1/3rd therefrom by way of personal living expenses. In making the aforesaid observations, their Lordships of the Supreme Court relied on the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager Kerala SRTC vs. Susamma Thomas, supra. In Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited vs. S. Rajapriya and Others, supra, also it has been observed by the Supreme Court that choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimants whichever is higher and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. In Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Road Transport Corporation Limited vs. K.S. Bindu and Others, supra, same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court. 7. In order, therefore, to arrive at a reasonable and rational amount of compensation and to counter balance the aforesaid doctrine as well as ensure that the compensation awarded is just reasonable and not a bonanza, the aforesaid amount of Rs.14,77,560/- is reduced to Rs.12,50,000/-. 8. The appellants are thus held entitled to receive total compensation of Rs.12,50,000/-, which includes compensation of Rs.27,000/- under non-pecuniary heads. The appellant is also held entitled to receive interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 9. 8. The appellants are thus held entitled to receive total compensation of Rs.12,50,000/-, which includes compensation of Rs.27,000/- under non-pecuniary heads. The appellant is also held entitled to receive interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 9. Compliance of the judgment be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondent No.5 National Insurance Company Limited. The appeal is accordingly allowed.