Babudi Bai And Ors @APPELLANT@Hash Santosh Sharma And Ors

Appellants have filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, seeking enhancement of

compensation.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal was liable to be enhanced. In support of his

arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Versus

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

Chandra4, 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 (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 parent(s) 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. 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 nonearning 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.â€​

“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)Â 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, M16 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.â€​

“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.

“61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-

(i)Â 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)Â 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)Â 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)Â 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)Â 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)Â The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.

(vii)Â The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.

(viii)Â 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.â€​

Appellants had filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of Prahlad in the motor vehicle accident, which had occurredÂ

on 28.04.2011. As per the post-mortem examination report, deceased was aged 55 years at the time of accident. Keeping in view the age

of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier to work-out the dependency of the appellants would be 11. There was no documentary evidence

available on record with regard to the income of the deceased. Hence, the income of the deceased was liable to be determined as per the minimum

wages fixed by the State. At the relevant time, unskilled worker was liable to earn Rs.3,510/- per month as per the minimum wages fixed by the State.

Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,030/- per month by treating him a skilled worker, although, there was no material on record to

the effect that the deceased could be treated as a skilled worker.

Keeping in view the number of appellants, 1/4th was liable to be deducted from the income of the deceased towards his

personal expenses. Thus, the dependency of the appellants comes to Rs.3,510 â€" Rs. 877 = Rs.2,633/- X 12 X 11 = Rs. 3,47,556/-. Appellants would

be further entitled to receive an addition of 10% of the said amount towards future prospects of the deceased and the said amount comes to Rs.

34,755/-. Appellants would be further entitled to receive Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the

total compensation comes to Rs. 3,47,556/- + Rs. 34,755/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- = Rs. 4,37,311/-. However appellants have already been

granted Rs. 5,25,900/- by the Tribunal. Thus, the appellants are not entitled for enhancement of amount of compensation.

Dismissed.