Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 121 (GAU)

Vanlalpekhlui and Ors. v. Shivnath Singh and Ors.

2015-02-04

T.VEIPHEI

body2015
Heard Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. K. Laldinliana, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 i.e. United Insurance Company Ltd. 2. The two questions which call for determination in this appeal filed by the appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are: 1) Whether the claimant/appellants are entitled to future prospect @ 50% of the actual salary drawn by the deceased at the time of her death? 2) Whether the eldest daughter of the deceased, who is already a major, is also entitled to loss of love and affection to the award of Rs. 100,000/-? 3. The fact material for disposal of the appeal may be briefly stated at the outset. The claimant/appellants, who are three in numbers are the daughters of the deceased Mrs. T. Lalhmangaihsangi, who died on 16.1.2011 by a vehicular accident involving one LMV bearing Registration No. MZ-03-1917 and one Scooter bearing Registration No. MZ01A-7553 at Chanmari near Customs office, Aizawl. The Truck was at that time proceeding towards Chanmari from Ramhlun side and was overtaken by a few two wheelers, out of which one rider of the Scooter bearing Registration No. MZ01-A-7553 overtook the Truck near LMV parking. The Truck grazed the tail of the scooter whereupon the scooter rider lost his control, which resulted in the accident. The deceased sustained severe injury on her person and succumbed to her injury at Civil Hospital, Aizawl on 16.1.2011 while the rider of the scooter, who sustained a minor injury, however, survived the accident. The daughters of the deceased, who are the appellants herein, filed a joint claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Aizawl for awarding compensation for the death of their mother. 4. The vehicle was admittedly insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd (wrongly written as New India Insurance Company Limited in the Judgment) at the time of accident. Both the Truck driver and the Scooter driver have a valid driving license at the time of accident. The father of the claimants/appellants was also arraigned as the Opposite Party No. 2 in the claim petition (the respondent No. 2 herein) as he was the rider of the ill-fated scooter. The claim petition was contested by the insurer i.e respondent No.3 herein by filling their written statement. The father of the claimants/appellants was also arraigned as the Opposite Party No. 2 in the claim petition (the respondent No. 2 herein) as he was the rider of the ill-fated scooter. The claim petition was contested by the insurer i.e respondent No.3 herein by filling their written statement. As the issues raised in the course of hearing of the appeal are now confined to the two issues indicated earlier, it is not necessary to deal with the other questions in the memo of appeal. It is the contention of Mrs. Dinari.T.Azyu, the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Tribunal has erroneously refused to award a sum of Rs 100,000/- each to the claimant/appellants by way of loss of love and affection contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar and Others -Vs- Kishore Dan and Others reported in 2013 (3) TAC 6: this resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. She also submits that the learned Tribunal has also grossly erred in law in refusing to add 50% to the actual monthly salary drawn by the deceased while computing the future prospects in contravention of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, 2013 (3) TAC 697 as she was aged 41 years while she died. The learned counsel maintains that the two minor claimants/respondents are entitled to Rs. 100,000/- each by way of loss of care and guidance of their mother, while the appellant No. 3, though, a major, is also entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection on the analogy of the award under such head made by the Apex Court to the mother of the deceased in Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan, 2013(3) TAC 6. She, therefore, submits that the impugned award is liable to be modified to the extent indicated above for awarding just compensation to the appellants. 5. Per contra, Mr. K. Laldinliana, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, i.e. United Insurance Company Ltd. supports the impugned judgment and submits that no interference of this Court is not called in the impugned award inasmuch as no substantial infirmity can be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants. 5. Per contra, Mr. K. Laldinliana, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, i.e. United Insurance Company Ltd. supports the impugned judgment and submits that no interference of this Court is not called in the impugned award inasmuch as no substantial infirmity can be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants. He also argues that the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal @ 9% is on the high side and should be reduced to 6% in the interest of justice. 6. I have given my consideration to the rival submissions advance on behalf of both the parties. In so far as the award with respect to addition of some percentage to the actual monthly salary of the deceased while computing the future prospects is concerned, the law appears to have been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Savita –vs- Bindar Singh and Others reported in (2014) 4 SCC 505 and Rajesh and Others-vs-Rajbir Singh and Others reported in 2013(3) TAC 697. Paragraph 11 of the judgment in Rajesh and Others(Supra) is illustrative which is reproduced herein below:- “11. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi’s case (supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and to make it applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self- employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years”. Thus, on a parity of reasoning, it is not difficult to hold that when the deceased in this appeal was 41 years old at the time of the accident, it is permissible to add 30% to the actual annual income of the deceased for computing the future prospects. 7. Thus, on a parity of reasoning, it is not difficult to hold that when the deceased in this appeal was 41 years old at the time of the accident, it is permissible to add 30% to the actual annual income of the deceased for computing the future prospects. 7. In so far as loss of love and affection to the two minor appellants is concerned, the issue is settled by the Apex Court in Vimal Kanwar (supra) wherein the Apex Court has awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- to minor daughter of two years. In the instant case, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded to each of the two minor appellants. Coming to the appellant No. 3, who is admittedly a major, it is to be noticed that in Rajesh and others (supra), the Apex Court awarded Rs. 100,000/- each to the widow and mother of the deceased for the loss of love and affection. On the same principles, the enhanced compensations payable to the appellants are worked out on the basis of the following calculations: Sl. NoHeadsCalculation (1) Annual Income= Rs 3000 x 12 = Rs 36,000/- (2)Addition of 30% for future prospect= Rs 36,000x30/-= Rs. 10,800/- 100 (3)Calculation as per 2nd Schedule of MV Act after deduction of 1/3rd for personal expense= Rs (36,000 + 10,800)x15x2= Rs.4,68,000/- 3 (4)Addition of Rs. 100000/- each for the Claimant/appellant Nos. 1 to3 for loss of love & affection for the minor children=Rs (468,000+300,000)=Rs.768,000/- (5)Addition for Funeral expenses=Rs (768,000+25,000)= Rs. 793,000/- (6)Addition of Rs. 2000/- for loss of estate=Rs. (793,000+2000)=Rs. 795,000/- Total compensation= Rs 795,000/- 8. The total amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimant/appellants will come to Rs. 795,000/-(Rupees seven lakh ninety five thousand) only together with interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim petition. The payment shall be made by the respondent No. 3 i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd to the next friend of the appellants through Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Aizawl within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this judgment. Needless to say, actual payment is to be made after satisfying the usual formalities and identification of the recipient. Send down the LCRs forthwith.