Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 681 (RAJ)

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. ASHISH SHARMA

2018-03-06

SABINA

body2018
ORDER : Sabina, J. Vide this order above mentioned appeal as well as cross-objections filed by the claimant shall be disposed of. 2. Claimant Ashish Sharma filed the claim petition under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of death of his mother Vijay Laxmi in the Motor Vehicle Accident. Vide impugned award dated 29.8.2009 claim petition filed by claimant was allowed. Hence, appeal has been filed by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. challenging the award passed by the Tribunal. Claimant has filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. 4. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 (SC) 4973 , as under :- '39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectable from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, 31 and 32, Sarla Verma lays down :- '30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra 4, the general practise is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.' x x x x x '44. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the claims tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in paragraph 19 of Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of the said judgement. For the sake of completeness, paragraph 42 is extracted below :- '42. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the claims tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in paragraph 19 of Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of the said judgement. For the sake of completeness, paragraph 42 is extracted below :- '42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to (4 of 8) [CMA-5187/2009] be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.' x x x x '61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions :- (i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgement by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. (ii) As Rajesh has taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is a binding precedent. (iii) 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 48 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. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was 48 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. (iv) 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. (v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgement. (vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. (viii) 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.' 5. In order to prove the fact's of accident and the negligence of respondent Mahavir Singh at the time of alleged accident, claimant appeared in the witness-box as AW-1. Claimant deposed that on 17.2.2007, he was driving Maruti Car bearing No.RJ-14-5C-0284 along with his parents. At about 7.00 a.m. when he was driving the vehicle on Jaipur Ajmer Highway, car bearing No.RJ14-7C-8579 came from behind and while over taking the car driven by the claimant, struck against the car driven by the claimant. Hence, the car driven by the claimant fell in the ditches and Vijay Laxmi suffered injuries and later succumbed to her injuries. The said witness was cross-examined at length, but his testimony with regard to the manner of accident could be shaken. 6. AW-3 Raghuveer Singh corroborated the statement of AW-1 with regard to the manner of accident. 7. Hence, the car driven by the claimant fell in the ditches and Vijay Laxmi suffered injuries and later succumbed to her injuries. The said witness was cross-examined at length, but his testimony with regard to the manner of accident could be shaken. 6. AW-3 Raghuveer Singh corroborated the statement of AW-1 with regard to the manner of accident. 7. Mahavir Singh driver of the offending vehicle, appeared in the witness-box as NAW-3 and deposed that on the day of accident, he was driving his vehicle from Kishangarh towards Jaipur. In the meantime, a white colour Maruti car came and struck against a car driven behind his car and later fell in the ditches. He stopped his car to inspect the damage and saw that the car which had fallen in the ditches had been damaged. One lady had fallen out of the car, whereas, another person had suffered head injury. Injured were moved to the hospital. The said witness in his cross-examination had stated that he had over taken Maruti car bearing No.RJ14-5C-0284. 8. Thus, NAW-3 had admitted that he had over taken the vehicle in question which was driven by Ashish Sharma. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the statement of NAW-3 fails to rebut the claimant AW-1. Hence, learned Tribunal rightly held that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligence driving of Mahavir Singh while driving the car No.RJ14-7C-8579. 9. The next question that requires consideration is with regard to the compensation liable to be received by the claimant Ashish Sharma. 10. Vijay Laxmi, mother of claimant Ashish Sharma was aged about 52 years at the time of accident. As per the evidence on record, Vijay Laxmi was working as a teacher. As per Exhibit-12, the gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 16735/- and after deductions, her net income was Rs. 13036/-. Although, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the income tax paid by the deceased was liable to be deducted from her income, but no evidence is available on record in this regard. Hence, argument raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has no force. 11. Claimant is the son of the deceased. Hence, deduction for personal expenses of the deceased from her income would be 50%. Thus, the dependency of the claimant comes to Rs. 6518/-. Hence, argument raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has no force. 11. Claimant is the son of the deceased. Hence, deduction for personal expenses of the deceased from her income would be 50%. Thus, the dependency of the claimant comes to Rs. 6518/-. Keeping in view the age of the deceased appropriate multiplier in the present case would be 11. Thus, the dependency of the claimant comes to Rs. 6518 x 12 x 11= Rs. 860376/-. 12. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, claimant is also entitled to receive 15% as loss of income towards future prospectus of the deceased. The same comes to Rs.1,29,056/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled to receive Rs.8,60,376 + Rs.1,29,056 = Rs.9,89,432 as compensation. Claimants is further entitled to receive Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.10,04,432/-. 13. Accordingly, impugned award dated 29.8.2009 is modified to the extent that the claimant Ashish Sharma is entitled to receive Rs. 10,04,432/- by way of compensation instead of Rs. 13,00,564 as awarded by the Tribunal. The remaining terms and conditions of the award shall remain the same. 14. Appeal and the cross-objections stands disposed of accordingly.