AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Ashokkumar C. Joshi, J
This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arising out of the judgment and award dated 09.07.2014 rendered by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara (the Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1077 of 2007 (claim petition), whereby, the Tribunal was pleased to award compensation of Rs.3,97,850/- with running interest at the rate of 9% per annum and proportionate costs from the date of claim petition till realization, against claim of Rs.10 lakh made by the appellants – original claimants. Accordingly, the appellants – original claimants has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.
Since the facts of the accident are not in dispute, the Court deems it proper not to discuss the same. Minimum is to say that in a vehicular accident that had occurred 09.03.2007, son of the appellants – claimants sustained grievous injuries and eventually, succumbed to the injuries. Accordingly, for the death of the deceased, the appellants – claimants preferred the aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lakh.
Heard, learned advocate Mr. Mohsin Hakim for learned advocate Mr. MTM Hakim for the appellants – original claimants and learned advocate Mr. V. C. Thomas for the respondent No. 3 – insurance company. Though served, nobody appears for the respondent No. 1 and 2, who are the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle.
The learned advocate for the appellants – claimants submitted that the Tribunal has materially erred in awarding the compensation inasmuch as, against the claim of Rs.10 lakh, the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs.3,97,850/-. He submitted that the Tribunal has materially erred in considering the income of the injured claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month only. He submitted that the deceased was studying in third year of B.Com. and had also registered himself for the Common Proficiency Test (CPT) and accordingly, had he been alive, he would have a bright future, however, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the said aspect. The learned advocate for the appellants further submitted that the Tribunal has gravely erred in adopting a multiplier of 13 considering the age of the mother of the deceased i.e. appellant No. 2 herein. He submitted that as per the settled legal position, multiplier of 18 ought to have been adopted considering the age of the deceased of 20 years at the time of accident.
4.1 Moreover, the learned advocate for the appellants – claimants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in considering the future rise in income at 50% and deducting 1/2 towards personal expenses of the deceased. Further, it is submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding a very trivial amount under the conventional heads. Further, it is submitted that the rate of interest awarded is also on the lower side.
4.2 Thus, making such submissions, the learned advocate for the appellant has urged to enhance the compensation suitably and thereby, to allow this appeal.
Per contra, while opposing the present appeal, the learned advocate for the respondent No. 3 – insurance company submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation considering the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.3,000/- per month, and has rightly awarded compensation under different heads, which is as per the settled legal position, and accordingly, it is submitted that no interference is called for in this appeal at the hands of this Court and it requires to be dismissed.
Regard being had to the submissions made and considering the impugned judgment and award so also the material available on record vis-a-vis the settled legal position on the subject, it appears that for the death of the deceased, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,97,850/- under different heads. So far as the facts of the accident are concerned, there is no dispute. However, the learned advocate for the appellants – claimants has disputed the income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/-. The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount under different heads. Further, it has been submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly adopted the multiplier considering the age of the mother instead of deceased and has also erred in considering future prospective income @ 50% and deducting 1/2 towards personal expenses and so on. In this regard, if the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is referred to, it can be summarized as under:
Head
Amt. (Rs.)
Future economic loss (Rs.3,000 + 1,500 (Rs.3,000 x 50%) = 4,500 x 12 = 54,000 x 1/2
= Rs.27,000 x 13 (multiplier)
3,51,000/-
Medical Expenses
10,850/-
Pain, shock and suffering
10,000/-
Transportation Charges
1,000/-
Loss of love and affection
20,000/-
Funeral Charges
5,000/-
Total
3,97,850/-
6.1 Referring to the impugned judgment and award, it appears that the Tribunal has considered the income of the appellant – claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month for want of any documentary evidence, which appears to have been rightly assessed. Further, the Tribunal has considered the future prospective income @ 50%, which, according to the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, MANU/SC/1366/2017 and Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and Ors., MANU/SC/0696/2020, ought to have been considered at 40% for the age group up to 40 years, for self-employed/fixed salary persons. Further, in view of the decision in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others, MANU/ SC/0606/2009, considering the fact that the deceased was bachelor at the time of accident, 1/2 amount is required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased.
6.2 Further, so far as the multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 13 considering the age of the mother of the deceased and thereby, has erred in doing so. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra), for the age group of 15-20, a multiplier of 18 is required to be applied. Indisputably, the claimant was aged 20 years at the time of accident and accordingly, the multiplier of 18 is required to be adopted.
6.3 Besides, considering the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), under the conventional heads viz. loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.40,000/- (to each dependent), Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively, are required to be awarded, with 10% rise every three years.
6.4 So far as loss of love and affection is concerned, no separate amount is required to be awarded in view of the decision of the Apex Court in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others v. Somwati and Others, MANU/SC/0674/ 2020.
6.5 Thus, in view of the above, present appeal requires to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed in part. The appellants – original claimants are entitled to following compensation under the different heads as narrated herein below, and to that extent, the impugned judgment and award stands modified:
Head
Granted by Tribunal (Rs.)
Required to be granted (Rs.)
Income of the deceased (per annum)
36,000/-
36,000/-
Future Prospective Income
18,000/- @ 50%
14,400/- @ 40%
Total
54,000/-
50,400/-
Minus: Personal Expenses of the deceased @ 1/2
27,000/-
25,200/-
Multiplier
13
18
Future Loss of Income
3,51,000/-
4,53,600/-
Loss of Consortium (filial consortium - 2 dependents), Rs.40,000/- each, with 10% rise per three years
–
88,000/-
Loss of Estate with 10% rise per three years
–
16,500/-
Funeral Charges with 10% rise per three years
5,000/-
16,500/-
Medical Expenses
10,850/-
10,850/-
Pain, shock and suffering
10,000/-
10,000/-
Transportation Charges
1,000/-
1,000/-
Loss of love and affection
20,000/-
–
Total Compensation
3,97,85
5,96,450/-
Differential amount
1,98,60
6.6 Thus, the appellants – original claimants shall be entitled for an enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,98,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on such enhanced amount of compensation, which shall be from the date of award of the Tribunal. The rest of the judgment and award shall remain intact. R&P, if received, be sent back forthwith.