Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 380 (GUJ)

Suresh Dubey v. Sumankumar Nirmal Basu

2015-04-01

G.B.SHAH, JAYANT M.PATEL

body2015
JUDGMENT : JAYANT M. PATEL, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 528 of 2000, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 13,38,216/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum. The short facts of the case appear to be that on 2.3.1999 at about 1.45 p.m., in the afternoon one Sumankumar Basu and his friend deceased Suresh Dubey were going on motor cycle Suzuki bearing registration No. GJ 5-MM 321, wherein the deceased Suresh Dubey was pillion rider, from Tarsali to Vadodara City and when they reached near Mahadev Temple, he lost control over the motor cycle and the motor cycle dashed against the electric pole. Resultantly, they sustained injuries. Thereafter, Suresh Dubey succumbed to the injuries. The claim petition was filed being M.A.C.P. No. 528 of 2000 for compensation of Rs. 35,00,000/-. The Tribunal, at the conclusion of the claim petition, passed the above referred judgment and award. Under these circumstances, the original claimant has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of compensation before this court. 2. We have heard Mr. Hakim, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Sandip Shah, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, insurance company of the motor cycle, the main contesting party. 3. Mr. Hakim, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the prospective income and even the multiplier has not been properly applied, as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC). He submitted that the Tribunal has also committed error in awarding a meagre amount for loss of expectation of life. In this manner, Claims Tribunal has committed error in awarding lower amount of compensation, though the original claimants-appellants herein were entitled to much higher amount of compensation. 4. Whereas Mr. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, respondent No. 3 herein, while supporting the award passed by the Tribunal contended that Claims Tribunal has appropriately awarded the amount and no interference may be made by this court in the present appeal. 5. We have considered the judgment and the reasons recorded by the Tribunal. We have also considered the record and proceedings. As per the certificate at Exh. 5. We have considered the judgment and the reasons recorded by the Tribunal. We have also considered the record and proceedings. As per the certificate at Exh. 32 produced by the witness, the consolidated salary of the deceased at the time of death was Rs. 11,683. He was working as Junior technician-cum-operator with Reliance Industries Limited. The Tribunal has erroneously not considered the aspect of prospective income. The deceased was aged 26 years and was working with a limited company. There were fairly good chances, as per certificate, Exh. 32, of rise in the income and further prospects of increase in the monetary benefits. Under these circumstances, we find that there was no reason for the Tribunal not to consider the prospective income of the deceased. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma, , 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), considering the age of the deceased of 26 years, 50 per cent raise could be considered for the purpose of prospective income. Accordingly, the prospective income could be assessed at Rs. 17,524/- and yearly it would be Rs. 2,10,294/-. 6. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma, , 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), the net income is to be considered after deduction of income tax. The month of accident is March 1999 and during the said period of the accounting year of 1998-99, the exemption limit was Rs. 50,000/- under the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the taxable income may be approximately Rs. 1,60,294/-. However, while considering the aspect of deduction for income tax, judicial notice can be taken on the aspect that the exemption limit for the subsequent year has substantially gone up and the tax slabs have also substantially gone down. Therefore, we find it appropriate to make deduction of 10 per cent for income tax and accordingly it would be Rs. 16,000 per year for deduction of income tax. If the aforesaid amount is deducted from Rs. 2,10,294/- the net amount would be Rs. 1,94,295/- and it can be rounded off at Rs. 1,95,000/- per year for the purpose of assessment of future economic loss. 7. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), appropriate multiplier for the deceased of the age group 26 to 30 is 17. As observed earlier, out of the amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- per year for the purpose of assessment of future economic loss. 7. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), appropriate multiplier for the deceased of the age group 26 to 30 is 17. As observed earlier, out of the amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- per year 1/4th amount would be required to be deducted for personal expenses, since the number of claimants were four (exceeding three), such amount would be Rs. 48,750/- and 3/4th would be Rs. 1,46,250/-. If the aforesaid amount is considered by applying multiplier of 17, the total amount would be Rs. 24,86,250/- towards future economic loss. 8. The perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal shows that the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000/- only towards loss of expectation of life, which we find is on lower side. Considering the facts and circumstances that the date of accident is in the year 1999 and the cost structure prevailing then, we find it appropriate to award an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of expectation of life and loss of love and affection. The Tribunal has awarded the amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Keeping in view the cost structure prevailing then, we find that no interference is called for. 9. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the original claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 25,36,250/- (sic Rs. 25,41,250) as against the amount awarded by the Tribunal of Rs. 13,38,216/-. Hence, it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 25,36,250 (sic Rs. 25,41,250) with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application until the amount is paid or deposited with the Tribunal and if deposited, with accrued interest thereon. 10. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified. 11. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the respondent insurance company, states that the remaining amount shall be deposited as per the present judgment within a period of eight weeks from today. Hence, we direct the respondent No. 3 to abide by the declaration made before this court. 12. It is also observed and clarified that though the present appeal has been preferred by the original claimant Nos. Hence, we direct the respondent No. 3 to abide by the declaration made before this court. 12. It is also observed and clarified that though the present appeal has been preferred by the original claimant Nos. 1 and 2 and there is no specific apportionment of compensation amongst the claimants, out of the total amount of compensation, 75 per cent of the amount of compensation shall be made available in equal share to the original claimant No. 1, widow of the deceased and original claimant No. 2, son of the deceased, and the remaining 25 per cent of the amount shall be distributed in equal share between respondent Nos. 4 and 5, original claimant Nos. 3 and 4, i.e., father and mother of the deceased. It is also further observed and directed that out of the additional amount of compensation pursuant to the present judgment, the Tribunal shall permit 30 per cent withdrawal to the respective claimants of their respective shares and 70 per cent of the amount shall be invested by the Tribunal in F.D.R., initially for a period of three years and such investment shall be renewed from time to time but the respective claimants shall be entitled to withdraw periodical interest on such investments as and when it becomes due. Appeal shall stand partly allowed. No order as to costs.