Kadarbhai M. Mukhi and 1 vs Rasidaben Ajijbhai and 1

Honourable Mr. Justice K.S. Jhaveri

The appellants herein have challenged the award dated 01.01.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 239 of 1996 so far as the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,60,000/- by way of compensation to the original claimants along with 15% interest. It is the case of the appellants that while Shri Ajijbhai Dhanani was riding a bicycle, a tanker driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit the bicycle from behind as a result of which the deceased was thrown off the bicycle and sustained serious injuries. He succumbed to those injuries. The claimants being legal heirs and representatives of the deceased therefore filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.

Mr. Vyas, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Ajay Mehta for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in quantifying the award at Rs. 2,60,000/-. He submitted that the dependency loss of Rs. 2,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side as the Tribunal has considered the prospective income of the deceased even though he was 53 years old and therefore the same is required to be reduced. He also submitted that the Tribunal erred in considering the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2000/- in absence of any cogent evidence on record. In support of his submission Mr. Vyas has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, .

Mr. Mehul Shah, learned advocate appearing for the respondent supported the impugned award and submitted that the award having been passed after considering the evidence in detail does not call for any interference by this Court. He submitted that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income.

The Tribunal has gone into the evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the accident in question happened because of the negligence of the driver of the tanker. However, the income assessed by the Tribunal seems to be on a higher side. In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 it is held as under:

In Susamma Thomas this Court increased the income by nearly 100%. In Sarla Dixit the income was increased only by 50% and in Abat Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of the imponderables and uncertainties,we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the decased towards future prospects, whee the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words "actual salary" should be read as "actual salary less tax"). The addition should be only 30% if the age fo the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Thouugh the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.) the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.

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 numbers is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th), where the number of Dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of Dependant family members exceed six.

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 ti 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 parents/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 dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be Dependant on the father. 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 family of the bachelor is large and Dependant on the income of the deceased, as in the case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning 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.

The multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table (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, M-16 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.

Considering the above, it is borne out that the Tribunal has wrongly considered prospective income when the deceased is around 53 years old. Therefore, even if the income of Rs. 2000/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal which seems to be just and proper is considered, the annual income shall come to Rs. 24000/-.

Deducting 1/4th from the total income for personal expenses, the amount dependency loss per annum shall come to Rs. 18000/- (Rs. 24000- Rs. 6000). The multiplier of 10 adopted in the present case is on lower side in view of the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Accordingly, multiplier of 11 shall be just and proper and accordingly the future dependency loss shall come to Rs. 1,98,000/-. The claimants shall also be entitled to an amount of Rs. 25000/- for loss of estate, consortium and funeral expenses thereby making the amount of compensation to Rs. 2,23,000/-. Against this, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,60,000/- which is excessive.

6.1. The interest of 15% imposed by the Tribunal is on a higher side. This court is of the view that interest of 12% ought to have been imposed by the Tribunal. The award is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled to only Rs. 2,23,000/- by way of total compensation. The appellant shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% instead of 15% from the date of claim petition till realisation. The amount deposited by the appellants qua 3% interest shall be refunded. The balance amount along with proportionate interest shall be refunded to the insurance company. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.