Chanderwati and Others vs Harvinder Singh and Others

Reva Khetrapal, J.—The Appellants in the present appeal pray for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by its Award dated 6th July, 1995.

The facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are not in dispute. On 22nd July, 1986, one Ram Kumar Rana, aged 39 years was going on a motorcycle driven by Surinder @ Yoginder as a pillion rider. At about 7.50 p.m. when the motorcycle was on the G.T. Karnal Road, near DDA Central Store, it was hit by a truck which had crossed the central verge. The motorcycle was dragged for some distance and both the driver of the motorcycle and Ram Kumar Rana, who was the pillion rider, suffered grievous injuries. Ram Kumar Rana (hereinafter referred to as ''the deceased'') succumbed to the injuries received by him. His legal heirs being his widow, his five children and parents filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 claiming a sum of ` 15,40,000/- as compensation against the Respondent No. 1 (the driver of the offending vehicle), the Respondent No. 2 (the owner of the offending vehicle) and the Respondent No. 3 (the insurer thereof).

The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, after appraisal of the evidence adduced by the claimants, including the two eye-witnesses to the accident, held the Respondent No. 1 guilty of rash and negligent driving and proceeded to compute the loss of dependency of the claimants. It held that the monthly income of the deceased was ` 1500/- per month from his employment as cashier in the Delhi Transport Corporation and after taking into consideration the future prospects of the deceased, held the income of the deceased for the purpose of computing the compensation payable to the Appellants to be ` 3000/- per month, i.e. ` 36,000/- per annum. After deducting one-third for the personal expenses of the deceased from the said amount, the loss of dependency was held by the Tribunal to be ` 2000/- per month, i.e. ` 24,000/- per annum. The multiplier of 12 was applied to this multiplicand and an award passed in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondents, jointly and severally, in the sum of ` 2,88,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.

Mr. Navneet Goyal, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, at the outset, very fairly submitted that though the income of the deceased was stated to be ` 3500/- per month in the claim petition, that is, a sum of ` 1485.61 as an employee in the Delhi Transport Corporation and a sum of ` 2000 from dairy farming and agriculture, there was no documentary evidence to show that the deceased was engaged in dairy farming and agriculture. As such the income of the deceased may be taken to be in the sum of ` 1500/- per month. As regards the future prospects of the deceased, Mr. Goyal submitted that though applying the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, , the income of the deceased, after taking into account his future prospects, had been assessed by the learned Tribunal at ` 3000/- per month, the income of the deceased may be taken to be ` 2250/- per month by addition of 50% to his actual income in consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, . He submitted that a deduction of 1/5th (one-fifth) from the total income was required to be made towards the personal expenses of the deceased, keeping in view the fact that at the time of the accident, the deceased had eight dependants; and the multiplier in accordance with Sarla Verma''s case (supra) should be the multiplier of 15, keeping in view the age of the deceased.

Mr. Pankaj Seth, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 was not able to point out any flaw in this method of calculation except to state that three of the claimants had died during the pendency of the appeal and as such the deduction of 1/5th (one-fifth) from the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses was not justified. There is, in my view, no merit in this submission.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records, in my opinion, the award deserves to be modified, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). It is not in dispute that the salary of the deceased at the time of his demise was 1500/- per month (rounded off). Taking into account the future prospects of the deceased and adding 50% of the aforesaid salary, the monthly income of the deceased works out to ` 2250/- per month. The loss of dependency after deducting 1/5th (one-fifth) therefrom towards the personal expenses of the deceased works out to ` 1800 per month, i.e. ` 21,600/- per annum. The appropriate multiplier, keeping in view that the deceased was 39 years of age, would be 15, and thus, the total loss of dependency comes to 3,24,000/- (i.e. ` 21,600/- x 15 = ` 3,24,000/-). Apart from this, the Appellants would also be entitled to ` 5000/- towards the funeral expenses of the deceased and a further sum of ` 10,000/- towards loss of estate. The Appellant No. 1 would also be entitled to receive a sum of ` 10,000/- for loss of consortium, i.e. a total sum of ` 3,49,000/-. The awarded amount is enhanced accordingly, i.e. from ` 2,88,000/- to ` 3,49,800/-.

In view of the aforesaid, the Appellants are held entitled to receive an enhanced amount of ` 61,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, apart from the amount awarded by the Tribunal with interest @ 12% per annum. The enhanced amount shall be paid to the Appellant No. 1, who is the widow of the deceased along with the interest thereon. 8. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.