Jaspal Kaur and Others vs Harjeet Singh and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is claimants'' appeal for enhancement of compensation. The claimants had brought a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act'') seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- on account of the death of Kulwinder Singh. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (for short ''the Tribunal''), vide award dated 20.07.2010 allowed the claim petition awarding a sum of Rs. 9,77,000/- as compensation to the claimants. Learned Tribunal did not award interest on the aforesaid amount in the first instance and directed the insurance company to deposit the amount of compensation within 1-1/2 months from the date of award failing which it was to pay interest on the amount of compensation @ 6% per annum. Kulwinder Singh died in a road side accident that took place on 13.02.2008. He died on account of the injuries suffered in the said accident on 22.02.2008. He was 32 years of age at the time of his death and he was employed as driver with Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh and was getting Rs. 7500/- per month as salary. He was moving on a motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-23D-0822 and was going to attend his duty. Claiming a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to have been spent in his treatment, an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- is claimed as compensation.

The respondents have denied the petition contained averments. They have denied the accident to have occurred in the manner alleged by the claimants and have also denied the personal particulars regarding employment, the salary and the age of the deceased.

Framing issues and taking evidence of the parties, learned Tribunal assessed compensation in a sum of Rs. 9,77,000/- as compensation and awarded the same to the claimants with conditional interest.

Learned counsel for the claimants has contended that learned Tribunal has not made any addition to the salary of the deceased in the name of future prospects. According to him, the deceased was in a permanent job and he was of the age of 30 years and so addition in the name of future prospects is admissible to the extent of 50%. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd from the salary in the name of personal expenses of the deceased on himself. According to him, the dependent family members of the deceased had been five and in such a situation as laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, deduction of 1/4th should have been made to take out the personal expenses of the deceased on himself. He has further submitted that the Tribunal should have awarded interest also from the date of filing of petition till the date of realization thereof and should not have made any order of the nature she has made in the case.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted, on the other hand, that just and fair compensation has been assessed in this case. According to him, the claimants may be 5 but the dependency has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal. He has also contended that no increase in the name of future prospects is also admissible in this case.

As laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma''s case supra, which is further explained in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, , the deceased being employed as a driver, increase in the income in the name of future prospects at the rate of 50% is admissible in his case as he was 30 years of age.

The deceased had been getting Rs. 7432/- per month as salary, which was proved by Dilbag Singh, PW-4, to which 50% has to be added in the name of future prospects. So adding 50% thereof to the aforesaid amount, the income of the deceased comes to Rs. 11,148/-.

Coming to the deduction, it has to be seen that the claimants are five in number, out of whom, one is widow, three minor children and one mother of the deceased. Mother cannot be excluded from the dependent family members. Even if it is done, still there are four dependent family members of the deceased and as laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma''s case supra, 1/4th should be deducted in a case where the dependent family members were from 4 to 6. Thus, deducting 1/4th from the aforesaid monthly income of the deceased, I find a sum of Rs. 8361/- as the monthly dependency of the claimants. The same has to be multiplied with 12 to find out the annual dependency of the claimants, which comes to Rs. 1,00,332.

There is no dispute regarding the multiplier of 16 adopted by the Tribunal. Adopting the said multiplier and multiplying the annual dependency with the same, I find a sum of Rs. 16,05,312/- as the amount lost by the appellants in the death of Kulwinder Singh. Adding to it, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as allowed by the Tribunal under the conventional heads, I find a sum of Rs. 16,20,312/- to be the compensation payable to the claimants-appellants. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 9,77,000/- to Rs. 16,20,312/-, which shall be payable to the appellants with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization thereof in the ratio as settled by the Tribunal in its award.