AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Basant, J.—One of the claimants is the Appellant herein. Claimants are the minor son, aged 16 years, and elderly parents, aged 75 and 69 years of the deceased. They claimed compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of the death of their father/son in a motor accident, which took place on 02.05.2002. The deceased was aged 47 years at the time of his death. He was employed in Mumbai. He was earning a monthly income above Rs. 17,000/- at the time of his death. The income tax return filed prior to his death in respect of the previous assessment year showed that his annual income from his salary was Rs. 2,05,436/-. Income tax of Rs. 22,968/- had been paid for that year as per the return filed on 28.06.2001. Against a total claim of Rs. 25 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 8,23,000/-as compensation as per the details given below:
i)
Loss of dependency
:
Rs. 8,00,000.00
(10,000 X 2/3 X 12 X 10)
ii)
Loss of love and affection
:
Rs. 5,000.00
iii)
Transportation expenses
:
Rs. 1,000.00
iv)
Damage to clothing
:
Rs. 1,000.00
v)
Funeral expenses
:
Rs. 6,000.00
vi)
Pain and suffering
:
Rs. 10,000.00
Total
:
Rs. 8,23,500.00
The challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensations paid under the head of loss of dependency and the interest awarded.
The Tribunal did not choose to accept the monthly income of Rs. 17,000/-. Instead, the Tribunal accepted only an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as the monthly salary. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits and we agree that the process of reasoning by which the monthly income has been reduced to Rs. 10,000/- is not revealed in the award. The learned Counsel further submits that the deceased was a person aged 47 years. The multiplier going by the dictum in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, must have been reckoned at 13. The Tribunal had reckoned the multiplier as 10 only. There is No. justification for reducing the multiplier 13 to 10, submits the learned Counsel for the Appellant.
The learned Counsel then contends that the Tribunal has awarded interest only '' 6% per annum. This is grossly insufficient. Interest must have been awarded at least '' 7.5%, argues the learned Counsel. We accept that contention regarding interest.
Coming to the quantum of compensation payable under the head of loss of dependency, we have satisfactory - nay convincing, evidence to show that the monthly income of the deceased was above Rs. 17,000/-. Even in the previous accounting year, above Rs. 2,000/- was spent for payment of income tax. At any rate, the amount which the deceased would have got in his hands every month can safely be assumed to be Rs. 15,000/-. He was employed under a private employer. Convincing evidence of possible future improvement in economic prospects in the employment had not been brought out. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that at least Rs. 15,000/- must, at any rate, have been reckoned as the monthly income.
Coming to the multiplier, Sarla Verma (supra) stipulates 13 to be the multiplier ordinarily. No. satisfactory reasons have been shown to deviate from that stipulation which must ordinarily apply.
All that remains is the extent of contribution of the deceased to the family. Claimants 2 and 3 are persons aged 75 and 69 years on the date of the claim and the period of dependency of claimants 2 and 3 must have been minimal. So far as the Appellant/1st claimant is concerned, he was aged 16 years at the time of his father''s death. It is reasonable to assume that he would have continued to depend on the deceased directly for a period of about a decade. But even thereafter, it is easy to assume that there must have been accretion to the estate of the deceased and the Appellant as the sole legal heir of the deceased would have been entitled to such accretion to the estate. No. amount has been awarded under the head of loss of estate.
Since the Appellant/1st claimant was the only one who would have effectively depended on the deceased and considering the quantum of monthly income, we are of the opinion that it would be absolutely safe to assume that the deceased would have spent one half of the salary on himself. of course, he was not a bachelor, in respect of whom, 50% deduction for personal expenses is permitted by Sarla Verma (supra). But in a family of only 2, we find it absolutely safe to assume that the deceased would have spent half the amount on himself and the other half would have been available to the Appellant either as monthly contribution or as accretion to estate.
In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that Rs. 15,000/- can be reckoned as the monthly earnings of the deceased. One half can be deducted towards his personal expenses and 13 can be reckoned as the multiplier.
The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the Appellant would be entitled to a further amount of Rs. 3,70,000/- as compensation on the ground of loss of dependency [(ie. 15,000 X 12 X = X 13) 11,70,000 minus 8,00,000], ie. Rs. 3,70,000/-.
We are satisfied that the entire amount of compensation should carry interest '' 7.5% per annum.
In the result:
a) This appeal is allowed in part;
b) The Appellant is found entitled to receive a further amount of Rs. 3,70,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs seventy thousand only) in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal;
c) We direct that interest be paid on the entire amount of compensation '' 7.5% per annum from the date of the application to the date of payment/realisation;
d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld.