Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 726 (RAJ)

Surjeet Singh v. Kayum Khan

2018-03-08

SABINA

body2018
ORDER : Sabina, J. Appellants have filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 21.8.2012, passed by the Tribunal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the amount of maintenance granted by Tribunal was liable to be enhanced. Learned counsel has further submitted that income of the deceased was liable to be calculated in terms of the latest income tax return for the assessment year 2009-2010. Deceased Manjeet Singh was working as a driver. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 (SC) 4973 , wherein it was held 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 reflectible 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, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this 37 (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 31 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 (?rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (?th) 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. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not 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 not 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 judgment. For the sake of completeness, paragraph 42 is extracted below :- "42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to 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 x "59. Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable. x 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 judgment 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 not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not 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. (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. 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 judgment. (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." 3. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the compensation granted by the Tribunal did not require any enhancement. 4. Claimants had filed claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of Manjeet Singh in the motor-vehicle accident which had occurred on 16.07.2010. Compensation in the present case is liable to be calculated as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi and others case (supra). 5. In order to determine the income of the deceased, income tax returns of the deceased proved on record were liable to be taken in consideration. As per the latest income tax return for the assessment year 2009-2010, income of the deceased was Rs. 1,49,100/- per annum. Learned Tribunal erred in treating the income of the deceased as Rs. 8,400/- per month (Rs.1,10,880/- per annum). In-fact, the income of the deceased was liable to be determined in terms of his last income tax return. Hence, the annual income of the deceased is determined at Rs. 1,49,000/- per annum. 6. Keeping in view the fact that the deceased was survived by his wife and two minor children, one-third (?rd) deduction was liable to be made from his income towards his personal expenses. 7. Thus, the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 99,400/- (th of Rs. 1,49,000/-). Deceased was more than 40 years of age at the time of the accident. Hence, the relevant multiplier in the present case would be 14. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 99,400/- x 14 = Rs. 13,91,600/-. 8. 7. Thus, the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 99,400/- (th of Rs. 1,49,000/-). Deceased was more than 40 years of age at the time of the accident. Hence, the relevant multiplier in the present case would be 14. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 99,400/- x 14 = Rs. 13,91,600/-. 8. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, claimants would be entitled to receive an addition of 25% of the established income towards future prospects of the deceased. Hence, the claimants are entitled to receive Rs. 3,47,900/- towards future prospects of the deceased. 9. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 13,91,600/- + Rs. 3,47,900/- = Rs. 17,39,500/-. 10. Claimants are further entitled to receive Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 11. Thus, the total compensation liable to be paid to the appellants comes to Rs. 13,91,600/- + Rs. 3,47,900/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- = Rs. 17,94,500/-. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award dated 21.8.2012, is modified to the extent that the appellants are entitled to receive Rs. 17,94,500/- by way of compensation instead of Rs. 11,33,800/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining conditions of the impugned award shall remain same.