Anuradha Devi & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors

Lok Pal Singh, J

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 28.02.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pauri, in M.A.C. Case no.43 of 2010, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition of the appellants for a sum of Rs. 2,44,000/- against the respondent no.1 along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date actual payment is made.

Appellants-claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation. Respondent no.1 has not filed any appeal against the impugned Award whereby liability has been fastened upon it. Thus the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of rash and negligent driving has become final. Now, the sole controversy before this Court is as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,44,000/- under the following heads:-

i) The notional income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs. 36,000/- per month;

ii) Deduction of 50% has been made from the notional income towards personal expenses since the deceased was a bachelor;

iii) Multiplier of '13' has been applied on the basis of the age of parents of deceased;

iv) Rs.5,000/- has been awarded for funeral expenses

v) Rs.5,000/- has been awarded toward loss of estate

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has inter alia submitted that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the notional income of the deceased @ Rs. 36,000/- per annum. According to him, the Tribunal must take into consideration the minimum wages fixed by the State Government for the skilled labour. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the future prospects.

Learned counsel further submitted that the tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of '13' on the age of parents of deceased. He further submitted that meager amount of Rs.5,000/- has been granted under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate.

The Tribunal, while deciding issue no.4 regarding compensation, has recorded finding that the income of the deceased shown by the claimants as Rs. 8,000/- per month has not been proved by oral evidence and thus has taken into consideration the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month. This Court in Appeal from Order No.226 of 2009 Smt. Urmila Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Prasad Kudiyal, decided on 07.12.2017, while referring to the case of Basanti Devi4 has held that in cases where income could not be proved, the Tribunal must take into consideration the minimum wages fixed by the State Government. Under the MGNREGA Scheme, 20 days employment is mandatory to be provided to every adult residing in a village @ Rs. 150 per day. Thus, if Rs.150 per day is assessed as notional income of a daily wager, then his monthly notional income would be Rs. 4,500/- per month, therefore, monthly notional income of the deceased, in the present case also, should have been assessed and is hereby assessed as Rs. 4,500/- per month. The Tribunal has not granted any amount towards the future prospects. Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi1 has held that 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. In the present case, the deceased was aged 20 years. Hence, there should be an addition of 40% on the income of the deceased. As regards 50% deduction towards personal expenses, the Tribunal has rightly done so, as the deceased was a bachelor. The Tribunal has wrongly fixed the multiplier of '7' on the basis of age of parents of deceased. The legal position on this point is no more res integra. It has been held in a catena of judgments that the multiplier should be computed on the basis of the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependants. Reference may be made to Amrit Bhanushali2 wherein it has been held that the selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of the dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation. That being the position, multiplier of '18' would be applicable in the present case as the deceased was aged 20 years on the date of accident as per the law laid down in Sarla Verma3. In Pranay Sethi1 reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses has been awarded as Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/-and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The appellants are, thus, entitled for these figures also.

In the light of aforesaid discussion, the compensation awarded to the claimants is being re-assessed as follows:-

S.No.

Head

Amount (In Rs)

1.

Notional Income

54,000/- per annum

2.

40% addition on notional income towards future prospects

54,000+21,600=75,600

3.

After making deduction of 50% towards personal expenses

37,800/-

4.

Applying multiplier of '18'

6,80,400/-

5.

Funeral expenses

15,000/-

6.

Loss of estate

15,000/-

7.

Loss of consortium

40,000/-

Total Compensation

7,50,400/-

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and award dated 28.02.2014 is stands modified to the extent that the respondent no.1 shall pay the enhanced amount of Rs. 7,50,400/- to the parents of the deceased i.e. appellant nos.1 and 3 alongwith 6% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date actual payment is made. The amount already paid, if any, by the respondent no.1, shall be adjusted.

No order as to costs.