Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 689 (ALL)

SARJU DEVI v. SATYAJEET SINGH

2018-03-21

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, IRSHAD ALI

body2018
JUDGMENT : (Per Hon'ble B. K. Narayana, J.) Seen the office report dated 20.03.2018. Service on respondent nos.1 and 2 is deemed to be sufficient in view of the provision of Chapter VIII, Rule 12 Explanation (II) of the Allahabad High Court Rules. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. This is an appeal by father and mother of deceased Amit Kumar aged about 22 years, who died in a road accident on 08.11.2008 at about 11 p.m. near Kakraha pond, P.S.- Kokhraj, District- Kaushambi while he was going to Manjhanpur in a three wheeler Vikram, bearing registration no. U. P. 70-B.T.- 0435, hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle which turned upside down due to rash and negligent driving by its driver, for enhancement of compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/A.D.J.- IV, District- Kaushambi in M.A.C.P. No. 124 of 2008. The Tribunal by its judgement and award dated 30.07.2012 allowed the claim petition in part against respondent nos. 1 and 2 and directed the respondent no. 2 to pay Rs. 1,69,500/- as compensation to the claimants/appellants. The Tribunal by the impugned judgement and award calculated the compensation in the following manner:- The Tribunal held that the deceased at the time of his death was aged about 22 years and assumed his notional income as Rs. 15,000/- p.a. Since the deceased was a student and was unemployed at the time of the accident, the Tribunal awarded nothing towards the future prospects of the deceased and after applying the multiplier of 11, the Tribunal determined the loss of dependency as Rs. 1,65,000/-. The Tribunal thereafter proceeded to award Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 2,500/- under the conventional heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate respectively and assessed the total amount of compensation as Rs. 1,69,500/-. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgement and award suffers from following infirmities :- 1. The Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 11 for the purpose of calculating the loss of dependency, having regard to the age of the deceased whereas as per the dictum of the Apex Court laid down in paragraph 21 of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. The Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 11 for the purpose of calculating the loss of dependency, having regard to the age of the deceased whereas as per the dictum of the Apex Court laid down in paragraph 21 of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.) and the table for selection of multiplier indicated therein, the multiplier to be applied should be with reference to the age of the deceased and considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of his death, the multiplier which should have been applied is 18. 2. The Tribunal committed a patent illegality in not awarding any amount towards future prospects while determining the income of the deceased. 3. The amount awarded under the conventional heads is too meagre. In support of his aforesaid 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). 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. 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. 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. 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 Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.); 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. 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 21 to 25 years is 18. The Tribunal in our opinion erred in applying the multiplier of 11 on the basis of the actual age of the claimants/appellants. Since in this case, the deceased at the time of his death was aged about 22 years, the correct multiplier to be applied is 18. While determining the deceased's income, the Tribunal should have made an addition of 40% of his notional income towards the future prospects considering the deceased at the time of his death was below 40 years. The amount awarded under the conventional heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate is also liable to be increased in accordance with the principle laid down by the constitutional bench of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 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. 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. 15,000/- 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. 15,000/- + 40% of 15,000/- = Rs. 21,000/- p.a. After deducting 50% (i.e. 21,000-10,500) towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, his contribution to the family is determined as Rs. 10,500/- p.a. By applying the multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency is assessed at Rs. 1,89,000/-. We further award a sum of Rs. 15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. We accordingly increase the compensation awarded to the claimants/appellants by the Tribunal from Rs. 1,69,500/- to Rs. 2,19,000/-. 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 judgement and award stands modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. The parties shall bear their own costs.