Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 378 (RAJ)

Sarvan Kumar v. Rajkumar Saini

2016-03-04

VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

body2016
ORDER : Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J. The claimant-appellants complaining of inadequacy in awarding just and reasonable compensation as contemplated under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988; while adjudicating upon their claim petition vide award dated 29th September, 2008; have approached this Court for enhancement of the award. 2. Briefly, the skeletal material facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy raised herein are that the claimant-appellants instituted a claim petition for the loss suffered by them on account of death of their son, namely, Sita Ram, in a road accident, which occurred on 9th October, 2007. It is pleaded case of the appellants that the deceased son was aged about 26 years and was earning an amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month out of the milk dairy. However, the Tribunal concluded the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month in absence of any material evidence to substantiate the claim of monthly income as Rs. 7,000/-. Applying the multiplier of 8 on the basis of the age of the dependent parents of the deceased, assessed the 'loss of dependency' and allowed the claim petition for compensation of a total amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- (Rupees : Two Lakhs & Ten Thousands). 3. Learned counsel for the appellants, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the memo of the appeal, has raised two issues for consideration and adjudication seeking enhancement of the award. Firstly, for application of lesser multiplier of 8 is contrary to the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 1 SCC 121, which has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequents judgments including 3 Judge Bench in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65 . Thus, multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied for the deceased was 26 years of age. 4. Secondly, for allowing compensation under the conventional heads which far less than what has been allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments as indicated in the case of Smt. Neeta W/o Kallappa Kadolkar & Ors. v. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur, (2015) 3 SCC 590 . 5. Per contra; Mr. 4. Secondly, for allowing compensation under the conventional heads which far less than what has been allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments as indicated in the case of Smt. Neeta W/o Kallappa Kadolkar & Ors. v. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur, (2015) 3 SCC 590 . 5. Per contra; Mr. N.L. Verma, while referring to the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), asserted that the deductions made on account of personal and living expenses of the deceased to the extent of ?rd , is contrary to the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the deceased was a bachelor, and therefore, 50% of the income assessed ought to have been deducted for personal and living expenses of the deceased. 6. According to the learned counsel, the multiplier of 8 applied on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased is also not contrary to the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Reliance has been placed on the opinion in the case of Shakti Devi v. New India Insurance Company Limited & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 575 ; wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court repelling the arguments with reference to application of multiplier of 18, on the basis of the age of the deceased, held that in a case where the age of the claimants is higher than the age of the deceased, the age of the claimants and not the age of the deceased has to be taken into account for capitalisation of the lost dependency. However, considering the opinion in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), on the issue of multiplier, a multiplier of 11 was allowed in the case of Shakti Devi (supra). 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar. 8. Indisputably, the factual matrix as to the assessment of the income as well as the age of the deceased, is not in dispute. So also, the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), with reference to deductions for personal and living expenses in case of a bachelor, is also not in dispute for normally, 50% is to be deducted against personal and living expenses. So also, the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), with reference to deductions for personal and living expenses in case of a bachelor, is also not in dispute for normally, 50% is to be deducted against personal and living expenses. Accordingly, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal needs to be modified on that aspect. 9. As to the multiplier, the issue again fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari (Supra), before a Larger Bench of 3 Judges, on a reference, wherein on a consideration of earlier opinions including that of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus: "43. In what we have discussed above, we sum up our conclusions as follows: 43.1 In the applications for compensation made under Section 166 of the 1988 Act in death cases where the age of the deceased is 15 years and above, the Claims Tribunals shall select the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the table prepared in Sarla Verma, 2009 (6) SCC 121 read with para 42 of that judgment. 43.2 In cases where the age of the deceased is upto 15 years, irrespective of the Section 166 or Section 163A under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in Column (6) of the table in Sarla Verma, 2009 (6) SCC 121 should be followed. 43.3 As a result of the above, while considering the claim applications made under Section 166 in death cases where the age of the deceased is above 15 years, there is no necessity for the Claims Tribunals to seek guidance or for placing reliance on the Second Schedule in the 1988 Act. 43.4 The Claims Tribunals shall follow the steps and guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarla Verma, 2009 (6) SCC 121 for determination of compensation in cases of death. 43.5 While making addition to income for future prospects, the Tribunals shall follow paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma, 2009 (6) SCC 121 . 43.4 The Claims Tribunals shall follow the steps and guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarla Verma, 2009 (6) SCC 121 for determination of compensation in cases of death. 43.5 While making addition to income for future prospects, the Tribunals shall follow paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma, 2009 (6) SCC 121 . 43.6 Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma, 2009 (6) SCC 121 subject to the observations made by us in para 38 above. 43.7 The above propositions mutatis mutandis shall apply to all pending matters where above aspects are under consideration." 10. A glance of the conclusions in the case of Reshma Kumari (supra), would reflected that where the age of the deceased is 15 and above, the Claim Tribunals are to select the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the Table drawn in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra). Hence, the objection as to the multiplier, as argued on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company, is rejected. 11. In the case of Smt. Neeta (supra), on a consideration of earlier opinions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for conventional heads and interest allowed compensation on higher side holding, thus: "10. Further, we award Rs. 1,00,000/- to each of the Appellant-children, i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- respectively, as per the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Jiju Kuruvila and Ors. v. Kunjujamma Mohan and Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 166 towards loss of love and affection of the deceased father. Further, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- each is to be awarded to the parents of the deceased for the loss of love and affection of their deceased son as per the principles laid down by this Court in the case of M. Mansoor and Anr., v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2103) 12 Scale 324 We further award Rs. 25,000/- each towards funeral expenses of both the deceased as held by this Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 . 11. Ltd., (2103) 12 Scale 324 We further award Rs. 25,000/- each towards funeral expenses of both the deceased as held by this Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 . 11. The Appellants are also entitled to the interest on the compensation awarded by this Court in these appeals at the rate of 9% p.a. along with the amount under the different heads as indicated above. The courts below have erred in awarding the interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on the compensation awarded by them to the Appellants without following the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association & Ors., (2011) 14 SCC 481 . Accordingly, we award the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation determined in these appeals from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment." 12. Applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases referred to and relied upon; the appellants are entitled to compensation under the following heads:- S.No. Heads Amount as per Tribunal (in Rs.) Amount as per this Court (in Rs.) Enhanced Amount (in Rs.) 1 Loss of dependency Rs.1,92,000/- Rs.3,06,000/- Rs.1,14,000/- 2 Funeral Expenses and Loss of Love and affection (Parents) Rs.18,000/- Rs.25,000/- Rs.1,07,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- 3 Loss of estate NIL Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.2,10,000/- Rs.4,81,000/- Rs.2,71,000/- 13. Thus, total compensation payable to the claimants of the deceased Sita Ram by the respondent-Insurance Company will be Rs. 2,71,000/- (Rupees : Two Lakhs & Seventy One Thousands), with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application until the date of payment. 14. The amount of compensation awarded shall be paid by the respondent-Insurance Company either by demand draft/drafts in favour of the appellants or they may be deposited the same with interest, as awarded on enhanced compensation, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Behror, District Alwar, within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced/furnished. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in the terms as indicated above. 16. No costs.