Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 701 (MP)

SUGNABAI v. EICHER MOTORS LTD.

2011-06-30

P.K.JAISWAL

body2011
JUDGMENT : P.K. Jaiswal, J. This appeal is filed by the appellants u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 25.4.2007 passed by learned VIIIth Addl. Member M.A.C.T., Indore in Claim Case No. 65 of 2007. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 58,334 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for the death of their daughter arising out of the accident that occurred on 30.1.2006. Appellants had filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the death of their daughter Sarika. It is pleaded that their daughter Sarika was 20 years of age and was a brilliant student. She was doing diploma in Pharmacy from Malwa Institute of Technology, Indore. In first year she secured 782 marks out of 1100, i.e., 70 per cent. In Higher Secondary she secured 289 out of 450, 1st Division. In matriculation also she had secured 69 per cent. She was having a brilliant career but died due to the accident, leaving all the family members including appellants; however, a reasonable sum of compensation as prayed for may be allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the decision of Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2010 ACJ 2867 (SC), wherein the victim was a student of engineering final year at Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra (B.I.T.), at the time of accident he was seriously injured as a result of truck bearing registration No. DEG 3291 being negligently driven on 23.6.1993. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that injured was a brilliant student of mechanical engineering final year in reputed college having passed all the semester examinations with distinction and assessed his future earnings at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per month, i.e., Rs. 60,000 per annum. Para 11 is relevant which reads as under: (11) On the completion of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from the prestigious institute like B.I.T., it can be reasonably assumed that he would have got a good job. The appellant has stated in his evidence that in the campus interview he had been selected by Tata as well as by Reliance Industries and was offered pay package of Rs. 3,50,000 per annum. The appellant has stated in his evidence that in the campus interview he had been selected by Tata as well as by Reliance Industries and was offered pay package of Rs. 3,50,000 per annum. Even if that is not accepted for want of any evidence in support thereof, there would not have been any difficulty for him in getting some decent job in the private sector. Had he decided to join government service and got selected, he would have been put in the pay scale for Assistant Engineer and would have at least earned Rs. 60,000 per annum. Wherever he joined, he had a fair chance of some promotion and remote chance of some high position. But uncertainties of life cannot be ignored taking relevant factors into consideration. In our opinion, it is fair and reasonable to assess his future earnings at Rs. 60,000 per annum taking the salary and allowances payable to an Assistant Engineer in public employment on basis. Since he suffered 70 per cent permanent disability, the future earnings may be discounted by 30 per cent and, accordingly, we estimate upon the facts that the multiplicand should be Rs. 42,000 per annum. The appellant at the time of accident was about 25 years. As per the decision of this court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the operative multiplier would be 18. The loss of future earnings by multiplying the multiplicand of Rs. 42,000 by a multiplier of 18 comes to Rs. 7,56,000. The damages to compensate the appellant towards loss of future earnings, in our considered judgment, must be Rs. 7,56,000. The Tribunal awarded him Rs. 1,50,000 towards treatment including the medical expenses. The same is maintained as it is and, accordingly, the total amount of compensation to which the appellant is entitled is Rs. 9,06,000. 3. Considering the fact that deceased was 2nd year student of Pharmacy, after completion of pharmacy she would get a good job and her income would be not less than Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 8,000 per month. In my opinion, it is fair and reasonable to assess her income at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per month which is just and reasonable. At the time of death deceased was unmarried and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally. 5,000 to Rs. 8,000 per month. In my opinion, it is fair and reasonable to assess her income at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per month which is just and reasonable. At the time of death deceased was unmarried and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally. 50 per cent is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that an unmarried would tend to spend more on herself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of her getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. Thus, even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50 per cent would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50 per cent as the contribution to the family. After deducting 50 per cent amount out of total income, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 24,000 (Rs. 4,000 x 12 = Rs. 48,000/2 = Rs. 24,000). At the time of death the mother of deceased was 45 years of age. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the multiplier of 14 would be applicable. On applying the multiplier of 14 the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,36,000. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000 on other conventional heads. On other conventional heads I grant Rs. 44,000 under the head of loss to estate and funeral expenses, etc. Thus the total compensation comes to Rs. 3,80,000. After deducting the compensation amount of Rs. 58,334 already awarded by Claims Tribunal, the enhanced amount comes to Rs. 3,21,666 (Rs. 3,80,000 - Rs. 58,334 = Rs. 3.21,666). 4. On the other hand. Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company, supported the findings of the Claims Tribunal and argued that the compensation as awarded by the impugned award is just and proper, which does not warrant any interference by this court. 5. 3,21,666 (Rs. 3,80,000 - Rs. 58,334 = Rs. 3.21,666). 4. On the other hand. Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company, supported the findings of the Claims Tribunal and argued that the compensation as awarded by the impugned award is just and proper, which does not warrant any interference by this court. 5. Recently, in the case of P.S. Somanathan and Others Vs. District Insurance Officer and Another, (2011) 3 SCC 566 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court is of the opinion that the law has been laid down correctly in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , which is a very well considered judgment and is to be followed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants also drew my attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.K. Malik and Another Vs. Kiran Pal and Others, (2009) 14 SCC 1 , wherein the amount of Rs. 3,22,000 was awarded to the dependants of children between age group of 15 and 18 years. 7. In the case of Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2001) 8 SCC 197 , wherein the accident took place on 3.3.1989 the multiplier method was referred to and adopted with approval. In cases of children between 5 and 10 years of age, compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 was awarded for pecuniary compensation and in addition a sum of Rs. 50,000 was awarded for 'conventional compensation'. In the case of children between 10 and 18 years compensation of Rs. 4,10,000 was awarded including 'conventional compensation'. While doing so the Supreme Court held that contribution of each child towards family should be taken as Rs. 24,000 per annum instead of Rs. 12,000 per annum as recommended by Justice Y.V. Chandrachud Committee. This was in view of the fact that the company in question had an unwritten rule that every employee can get one of his children employed in the said company. 8. In the case of M.S. Grewal and Another Vs. Deep Chand Sood and Others, (2001) 8 SCC 151 , wherein fourteen students of a public school got drowned in a river due to negligence of the teachers. 8. In the case of M.S. Grewal and Another Vs. Deep Chand Sood and Others, (2001) 8 SCC 151 , wherein fourteen students of a public school got drowned in a river due to negligence of the teachers. On the question of quantum of compensation, the Hon'ble Court accepted that the multiplier method was normally to be adopted as a method for assigning value of future annual dependency. It was emphasised that the court must ensure that a just compensation was awarded. 9. In M.S. Grewal's case (supra), compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 was awarded to the claimants and the same was held to be justified. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance company, however, pointed out that in the said case the Supreme Court had noticed that the students belonged to an affluent school as was apparent from the fee structure and, therefore, the compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 as awarded by the High Court was not found to be excessive. It is no doubt true that the Supreme Court in the said case noticed that the students belonged to an upper middle class background but the basis and the principle on which the compensation was awarded in that case would equally apply to the present case. For the above-mentioned reasons, appeal is allowed in part. The appellants will be entitled to the enhanced amount of Rs. 3,21,666 in addition to what is already awarded with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of petition till its realization. No costs.