Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1132 (PNJ)

Suman v. Ram Bhaj

2013-08-22

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2013
JUDGMENT VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is an appeal brought by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. Suman and others claiming themselves to be dependents of Ajay Dutt, who died in a road side accident that took place on 22.08.2010, brought a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) seeking compensation in the death of Ajay Dutt. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panipat (for short the Tribunal) vide award dated 24.5.2012 allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 11,03,304/-as compensation in favour of the claimants. Ajay Dutt, the deceased had been working with Reliance General Insurance Company, Rohtak at the time of the accident. He was getting Rs. 20,000/- per month as salary. His widow, minor children and parents, who have filed the claim petition, have sought a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- as compensation. The aforesaid averments of the claimants have been denied by the respondents. They have denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and have denied the claimants to deserve a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- as compensation. Learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased Ajay Dutt as Rs. 7350/- per month. She found the deceased to have been 34 years of age at the time of his death. Taking the dependency of the claimants at 3/4th of the aforesaid income, learned Tribunal found the annual dependency of the claimants at Rs. 66,144/-. Learned Tribunal adopted multiplier of 16 and came to a figure of Rs. 10,58,304/- as lost by the claimants in the death of Ajay Dutt. Learned Tribunal has, however, assessed a sum of Rs. 45,000/- in the name of love and affection, loss of estate, loss of consortium, transportation and funeral expenses and, thus, assessed a sum of Rs. 11,03,304/- as compensation. The only challenge to the award by learned counsel for the appellants is only to learned Tribunal's not allowing any amount as addition to the income of the deceased in the name of future prospects. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the deceased had been 35 years of age and in case of a victim below the age of 40 years, 50% of the income is to be added to the actual income in the name of future prospects. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the deceased had been 35 years of age and in case of a victim below the age of 40 years, 50% of the income is to be added to the actual income in the name of future prospects. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted, on the other hand, that adequate compensation has been assessed by the Tribunal and the claimants are not entitled to anything else. The concept of addition to income in the name of future prospects started from a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 AIR (SC) 3104. The addition was held to be 50% for a deceased, who was below 40 years of age. It came to 30% if the deceased was above 40 years but below 50 years of age. No addition was prescribed for people dying after attaining the age of 50 years. However, in Smt. Sarla Verma's case supra, the condition imposed was that the deceased must have a permanent job. The benefit was subsequently extended in a number of decisions and last of all, it has come in Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 170 that the addition to the income has to be made in a case even if the deceased had been self employed or was employed on fixed wages. Now no distinction is to be made with regard to the employment in this regard. Since the age of the deceased was 35 years, his case would fall within the category of 50% addition. Adding 50% to the salary of the deceased, the total income for calculation of compensation comes to Rs. 11025/-. Out of it, the annual dependency has to be assessed at 3/4th and multiplying the remainder with 12 and further with 16, the multiplier suitable in this case, the compensation comes to Rs. 15,87,600/-. Adding to it, a sum of Rs. 45,000/- assessed by learned Tribunal in the name of loss of estate, loss of consortium, transportation and last rites, I find a sum of Rs. 16,32,600/- as compensation payable to the claimants-appellants. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 11,03,304/- to Rs. 16,32,600/- which shall be payable to the claimants by the respondents with interest as allowed by the Tribunal. 16,32,600/- as compensation payable to the claimants-appellants. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 11,03,304/- to Rs. 16,32,600/- which shall be payable to the claimants by the respondents with interest as allowed by the Tribunal. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-would fall to the share of Suman, appellant, the widow of the deceased and a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- each shall fall to the share of Ritika Sharma, Saruti Sharma and Dev Sharma, the minor children of the deceased and the remaining amount shall go to the mother of the deceased named Ompati. The amount of the share of the minor children shall be deposited in fixed deposit in some nationalized bank for the period till they attained the age of majority.