Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 570 (ALL)

RAHISHA BEGUM v. U. P. S. R. T. C.

2018-03-09

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, IRSHAD ALI

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J.—Seen the office report dated 8.3.2018. 2. Service on respondent No. 2 is deemed to be sufficient in view of the provision of Chapter VIII, Rule 12 Explanation (II) of the Allahabad High Court Rules. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears on behalf of the respondents. 4. This is an appeal by the wife, minor children and father of the deceased Ishaq alias Bhulley who had died in a road accident on 14.5.2010 at about 5:30 a.m. on G. T. Road, near Sardar Petrol Pump, P.S.- Pilua, District- Etah due to collision of Uttar Pradesh Roadways Bus bearing registration No. Uttar Pradesh 65/AR- 1058 with another truck bearing registration No. Uttar Pradesh 78/AN- 8841 which was rashly and negligently driven by its driver, for enhancement of the compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Etah in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 358/2010. 5. The Tribunal by its judgement and award dated 25.2.2011 allowed the claim petition in part against respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and directed the respondent No. 3 to pay a sum of Rs. 3,93,500/- as compensation to the claimants/appellants. The Tribunal by the impugned judgement and award calculated the compensation in the following manner : 6. The Tribunal held that the deceased at the time of his death was aged about 35 years and fixed his notional income as Rs. 3,000/- per month or Rs. 36,000/- p.a. After deducting 1/3rd amount from his notional income towards his living and personal expenses, the Tribunal determined Rs. 2,000/- per month or Rs. 24,000 per annum as his contribution to the family. After applying the multiplier of 16, the Tribunal determined the loss of dependency as Rs. 3,84,000/-. The Tribunal thereafter proceeded to award Rs. 2,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,500/- under the conventional heads of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate respectively and assessed the total amount of compensation as Rs. 3,93,500/-. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgement and award suffers from following infirmities : 1. The Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount towards future prospects of the deceased. 2. Keeping in view the number of members in the family of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have made a deduction of 1/4th from his notional income towards the living and personal expenses of the deceased. 3. The Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount towards future prospects of the deceased. 2. Keeping in view the number of members in the family of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have made a deduction of 1/4th from his notional income towards the living and personal expenses of the deceased. 3. The amount awarded under the conventional heads is too meagre. 8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgement and award as well as other material brought on record and we find that there is force in his submissions. 10. The constitutional bench of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), in sub-paragraph (iii) to (viii) of paragraph 61 has ruled inter alia; that while determining the income, an addition of 50% 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%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax; in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component; for determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the Courts shall be guided by paragraphs 14 to 15 of Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC); the selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) read with para 21 of that judgment; the age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier; reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of 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% in every three years. 11. Considering the fact that the deceased’s age at the time of his death was 35 years, the Tribunal erred in law in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Having regard to the number of dependants in the family of the deceased which in the present case is more than 3 but less than 6, the deduction of 1/4th should have been made towards the living and personal expenses of the deceased. 12. The Tribunal further erred in not awarding any amount towards future prospects. The constitutional Bench in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) in its sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph 61 has ruled that while determining the income, an addition of 40% of the notional income to the income of the deceased towards future prospects should be made where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. In the present case since the deceased was below 40 years of age on the date of the accident and was self-employed, an addition of 40% of his notional income should be made to the notional income of the deceased towards future prospects while determining his income. 13. The amounts awarded under the conventional heads of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate are also liable to be increased in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 14. 13. The amounts awarded under the conventional heads of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate are also liable to be increased in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 14. We accordingly proceed to recalculate the compensation in the light of the aforesaid principles. As noted above, the notional income of the deceased was fixed at Rs. 3,000/- per month or Rs. 36,000/- p.a. by adding 40% towards future prospects as the deceased was less than 40 years of age, the deemed gross income of the deceased would be Rs. 3,000/- + 40% of Rs. 3,000/-= Rs. 4,200/- per month or Rs. 50,400/- p.a. After deducting 1/4th amount (i.e. 4,200-1,050) towards the living and personal expenses of the deceased, his contribution to the family is determined as Rs. 3,150/- per month or Rs. 37,800/- p.a. By applying the multiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency is assessed at Rs. 6,04,800/-. We further award a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 40,000/- under the head of loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. We accordingly increase the compensation awarded to the claimants/appellants by the Tribunal from Rs. 3,93,500/- to Rs. 6,74,800/-. The claimants/appellants shall further be entitled to interest @ 7% p.a. on the increased amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment is made. 15. The appeal is allowed in part. 16. The impugned judgement and award stands modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. 17. The parties shall bear their respective costs.