Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 484 (MP)

Sarla Devi v. Arvind Jain

2018-05-10

SANJAY YADAV

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Yadav, J. 1. With the consent for learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. Aggrieved with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 3. The undisputed facts are that the Claims Tribunal taking into consideration that the death of Ramprakash Bhadoriya was due to the accident caused on 31.8.2011 by the truck bearing registration No. MP 09-KD 2573. And that the deceased was 41 years (his date of birth being 18.6.1971). He was employed as Head Constable, in receipt of Rs. 13,892 net pay (gross pay being Rs. 21,222); had four dependants, determined the loss of dependency at Rs. 1,25,028 per annum; and by applying the multiplier of 15, assessed loss of dependency at Rs. 18,75,420 and added Rs. 34,500 towards customary heads, awarded Rs. 19,09,920 towards compensation. 4. There is no dispute regarding the death due to accident, age of the deceased, his income and that 4 persons were dependent on him. 5. Grievance raised on behalf of the appellants-claimants is that the compensation is not awarded as per the verdict in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Trans. Corpn., 1999 ACJ 10 (SC), Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). 6. In Helen C. Rebello, 1999 ACJ 10 (SC), it is held: "(37) Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event, viz., accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No correlation between the two. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No correlation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy amount is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums. In the case of death, the insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on the insured's death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly, any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc., though all are pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as 'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction? When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a similar and same plane having nexus, inter se, between them and not to which there is no semblance of any correlation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no correlation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can the fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act? The amount under this Act he receives without any contribution. As we have said, the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual." 7. The amount under this Act he receives without any contribution. As we have said, the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual." 7. In Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), it is held that "generally the actual income of the deceased less income tax would be the starting point for calculating the compensation". 8. In Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), it is held: "(61)(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50 per cent of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30 per cent, if the age of the deceased was between 40 and 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 and 60 years, the addition should be 15 per cent. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (v) For determination of the multiplicand, deduction towards personal and living expenses, the Tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 14 and 15 of Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), which we have reproduced hereinbefore. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), read with para 21 of that judgment. (vii) Age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. (viii) Reasonable figures under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000, Rs. 40,000 and Rs. 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10 per cent in every three years." 9. In view whereof, taking into consideration gross income, minus income tax, i.e., Rs. 21,222 x 12 = Rs. 2,54,664 - Rs. 6,466 (towards income tax) = Rs. 2,48,198. By adding 30 per cent towards future prospects, i.e., Rs. 3,22,658. Deducting 1/4th which the deceased ought to have been spending on himself, the total annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,22,658 - Rs. 80,665 = Rs. 2,41,993 x 15 (multiplier) = Rs. 36,29,895. 10. In the case at hand, it is borne out from the salary certificate of the victim that an amount of Rs. 650 x 12 = Rs. 7,800 per annum was deducted towards SPBY. 3,22,658 - Rs. 80,665 = Rs. 2,41,993 x 15 (multiplier) = Rs. 36,29,895. 10. In the case at hand, it is borne out from the salary certificate of the victim that an amount of Rs. 650 x 12 = Rs. 7,800 per annum was deducted towards SPBY. It is further borne out from the evidence led on behalf of claimants, in case if employee retires, he gets Rs. 5,00,000 under the said head, i.e., SPBY but in case of accidental death, his dependants would be entitled for Rs. 10,00,000; therefore, in terms of decision in Helen C. Rebello, 1999 ACJ 10 (SC), Rs. 5,00,000 would be deducted from Rs. 36,29,895. Total compensation would stand computed at Rs. 31,29,895 and after making an addition of Rs. 70,000 on account of conventional heads; the total compensation would be Rs. 31,99,895. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of claim petition before the Tribunal. Apportionment shall be carried out in the terms of the award of the Tribunal. 11. The appeal stands allowed to the extent above. No costs.