Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1764 (PNJ)

Ramesh Chand Yadav v. Arvind Kumar Sharma

2012-12-06

M.JEYAPAUL

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J. (Oral) - The claimants are none other than the father, mother and two minor brothers of the deceased Karan Singh who was 22 years old Bachelor pursuing his final year Engineering Discipline. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, they have preferred the present appeal. 2. The Tribunal having concluded that the deceased was 22 years old applied the multiplier of 10 to assess the loss of dependency. As the deceased was not in job and was pursuing the final year Engineering discipline. The Tribunal chose to assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3000/-. As the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his income was deducted towards his personal living expenses. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased even below the income of a casual labourer. It is his further submission that considering the number of dependents the Tribunal should have deducted only 1/3rd and not 50% from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Instead of the multiplier of 14 the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 10. It is further contended that nothing was awarded towards future prospects. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent- Oriental Insurance Company Limited would submit that the Tribunal has rightly fixed the just compensation taking into account the evidence adduced by the parties concerned. 5. In Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Mr. T. Chelladurai and others, 2010(1) AICJ, 352, the High Court of Madras having referred to the decision in Sarla Verma and others vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 held that 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses is a normal rule. Having thus ruled, it confirmed the deduction of 1/3rd from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses done by the Tribunal. 6. In the instant case, the deceased was not in service. The evidence on record would go to establish that he was pursuing final year Engineering discipline. There is no evidence on record that the deceased was the eldest member of the family who had to take care of the entire family. 6. In the instant case, the deceased was not in service. The evidence on record would go to establish that he was pursuing final year Engineering discipline. There is no evidence on record that the deceased was the eldest member of the family who had to take care of the entire family. There is also dearth of evidence that his father was jobless and he also solely dependent upon the future earning resources of his son. Therefore, I am of the view that in the instant case, it is just to deduct 50% of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased relying on the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra). 7. In the aforesaid decision of the Madras High Court cited by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.7000/- per month in the case of the death of a final year student of Automobile Engineering but the High Court in that case had not added any amount towards future prospects of the deceased. Further in my considered view, the monthly income of the deceased fixed by a Court cannot be cited as a ratio to follow and adopt it in a different case. In the emerging peculiar facts and circumstances, against the background of the evidence available on record in each case, variation in the fixation of the monthly income of the deceased cannot be avoided. Of course the Courts are not supposed to err grossly in assessing the income of the deceased. 8. It is contended that the deceased was pursuing his final year engineering discipline in a reputed college. An official from the said college who was examined as PW-4 has deposed that it was not certain that there would be placement for all final year students in his College. There is nothing on record to assess the extraordinary performance or capability of the deceased. 9. In view of the above, I find that it would be just to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4000 per month. There is nothing on record to assess the extraordinary performance or capability of the deceased. 9. In view of the above, I find that it would be just to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4000 per month. As per Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, [2012(3) Law Herald (SC) 2035 : 2012(3) Law Herald (P&H) (SC) 1897 : 2012(1) Law Herald (Acc.) 794 (SC)] : 2012 RCR(Civil) 882 at least 30% income towards future prospects will have to be added to the income of the deceased. In view of the discussion embarked upon by one, I have proposed to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal living expenses. Claimants are also entitled to some amount towards loss of estate. 10. In view of the above, a sum of Rs.4,36,800/- (Rs.4000+30% thereof = Rs.5200-50% thereof = Rs.2600 x12= 31,200 x14= 4,36,800/-) towards loss of dependency, Rs.3,43,000/- towards medical treatment, Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance charges and last rites and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, in aggregate a sum of Rs.7,99,800/- with interest at 7.5% on the enhanced portion of compensation is awarded. The rate of interest applied by the Tribunal for the amount awarded by it and the apportionment of the award done by the Tribunal stand confirmed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.