Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 578 (ALL)

ANJU VERMA v. MUNNI DEVI

2018-03-09

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, IRSHAD ALI

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.K. Narayana, J.—Heard Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 3 despite service. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants/appellants for enhancement of compensation awarded to them by the M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge, Mirzapur by judgment and award dated 12.12.2012 for the death of Rajesh Kumar Verma, husband of claimant/appellant No. 1 and father of claimant/appellant Nos. 2 and 3, who was aged about 45 years at the time of the accident which had taken place on 14.12.2010 while he was going on his scooty from his residence in Allapur to Bairahna and when he reached the Balson trisection, a truck bearing registration No. U.P. 70/A.T.- 5526 which was being rashly and negligently driven by its driver, collided with the scooty causing serious injuries to the deceased who died on the spot as a result of the injuries so sustained by him. 3. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 12.12.2012 allowed the claim petition in part against respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and directed the respondent No. 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 12,87,108/- as compensation to the claimants/appellants. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award calculated the compensation in the following manner : After making necessary deductions, the Tribunal held that the deceased, who at the time of his death was working as Lecturer in English in D.A.V. Intermediate College, Allahabad, was earning Rs. 12,290/- per month or Rs. 1,47,480/- p.a. The Tribunal held that the deceased would have spent 1/3rd amount on his living and personal expenses and after deducting the aforesaid amount, he would have contributed Rs. 8193/- per month or Rs. 98,316/- p.a. towards his family contribution. Considering the age of the deceased which at the time of his death was between 45-46 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13 to the multiplicand and determined the total loss of dependency as Rs. 12,78,108/-. The Tribunal thereafter proceeded to award Rs. 2,000/-, Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 2,000/- under the conventional heads of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate respectively and assessed the total compensation as Rs. 12,87,108/-. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment and award suffers from following infirmities : 1. 12,78,108/-. The Tribunal thereafter proceeded to award Rs. 2,000/-, Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 2,000/- under the conventional heads of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate respectively and assessed the total compensation as Rs. 12,87,108/-. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment and award suffers from following infirmities : 1. The Tribunal erred in deducting the G.P.F., L.I.C. and General Insurance from the deceased’s take home salary which was Rs. 30,316/- as is evident from the passbook of his salary account filed before the Tribunal as it is now settled that actual salary should be read as actual salary less the tax. 2. The Tribunal failed to award any amount towards the future prospects of the deceased. 3. Considering the age of the deceased at the time of his death, the Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 13 to arrive at the total loss of dependency whereas the correct multiplier to be applied is 14. 4. The amount awarded under the conventional heads is too meagre. 5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon the case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and Others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). Per contra Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. made his submissions in support of the impugned judgment and award and argued that the same does not suffer from any illegality, requiring any interference by this Court. This appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned judgment and award as well as other material brought on record and we find that there is force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. 7. The constitutional bench of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and Others reported in 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. 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. 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. 8. The Tribunal thus erred in deducting the G.P.F., L.I.C. and General Insurance while calculating the deceased’s monthly salary. We hold the deceased’s salary to be Rs. 30,316/- by placing reliance upon the entries contained in the passbook of his salary account which was filed before the Tribunal and the settled law that actual salary should be read as actual salary less the tax. 9. According to the principle stated by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), the correct multiplier to be used where the deceased is aged between 41 to 45 years is 14. The Tribunal in our opinion erred in applying the multiplier of 13 on the basis of the actual age of the deceased. Since in this case, the deceased at the time of his death was aged about 45 years, the correct multiplier to be applied is 14. 10. The Tribunal in our opinion erred in applying the multiplier of 13 on the basis of the actual age of the deceased. Since in this case, the deceased at the time of his death was aged about 45 years, the correct multiplier to be applied is 14. 10. The Tribunal further committed a patent illegality in not awarding any amount towards future prospects. In the instant case, considering the fact that the deceased at the time of his death held a permanent job and was aged about 45 years, the Tribunal while determining the deceased’s notional income ought to have added 30% of his actual salary to his income towards future prospects. The amount awarded under the conventional heads of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate is also liable to be increased in accordance with the principle laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 11. We accordingly proceed to recalculate the compensation in the light of the aforesaid principles. As noted above, the actual salary of the deceased was Rs. 30,316/- per month or Rs. 3,63,792/- p.a. less tax. By adding 30% towards future prospects as the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years, the deemed gross income of the deceased would be Rs. 30,316/- + 30% of Rs. 30,316/- = Rs. 39,411/- per month or Rs. 4,72,932/- p.a. After deducting 1/3rd amount (i.e. 39,411-13,137) towards the living and personal expenses of the deceased, his contribution to the family is determined as Rs. 26,274/- per month or Rs. 3,15,288/- p.a. By applying the multiplier of 14, the total loss of dependency is assessed at Rs. 44,14,032/-. 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. 12,87,108/- to Rs. 44,84,032/-. 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. The appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award stand modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. The parties shall bear their respective costs.