Kanta and Others vs Ajaib Singh and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal brought by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. Anil Kumar died in a roadside accident that took place on 14.9.2007. On his death, his widow and children brought a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short, "the Tribunal") allowed the claim petition in a sum of Rs. 5,54,000/-. Anil Kumar [deceased] has been 27 years of age. He was dealing in sale and purchase of tyres as also repair of tyres and was earning Rs. 12,500/- per month. He is the only bread winning member of the family. Claiming themselves to be dependent upon the deceased, a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs has been claimed as compensation.

The respondents resisted the claim petition. They have denied the averments of the claimants regarding the age, occupation and income of the deceased. They have denied the claimants to deserve a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs as compensation.

Learned Tribunal could not place reliance on the evidence of the claimants that the deceased had been dealing in sale and purchase of tyres and also repair of tyres. He was taken as doing repair work of tyres by mending punctures of the automobiles. His income is taken as Rs. 4,000/- per month. The annual dependency of the claimants was found at 2/3rd of the annual income at Rs. 32,000/-. Multiplier of 17 has been adopted in this case and a sum of Rs. 5,44,000/- is found to have been lost by the claimants in the death of Anil Kumar. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- each has been awarded as loss of consortium and funeral expenses and a sum of Rs. 5,54,000/- has been assessed as compensation in favour of the claimants.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that nothing has been awarded in the name of future prospects. According to him, the income of the deceased was to be increased in the name of future prospects at the rate of 50% because the deceased was 27 years of age. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal has also not awarded adequate amount under the conventional heads.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted, on the other hand, that the adequate amount has already been assessed as compensation in this case. According to him, there is no ground on the record under which compensation allowed by learned Tribunal could be enhanced.

It has been an admission on the part of the claimants that the deceased was mending punctures of the tyres. He had not taken any agency of the tyres nor he had taken any license to run a shop in sale and purchase of the tyres. So, learned Tribunal has rightly ignored the evidence of the claimants that the deceased was dealing in sale and purchase of the tyres. The income of the deceased has been taken by way of guess work and I do not find any reason to differ from the same.

The scope of addition to the income of the deceased in the name of future prospects has been widened by the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, where Hon''ble Supreme Court of India has gone to the extent of allowing addition to the income in the name of future prospects even in cases of persons who are self employed or working on fixed wages. In the case in hand, the deceased has been working and was having an income. Income in every case increases with passage of time and when there is long time to go, the increase is also large. Taking the age of the deceased as 27 years, I find that 50% of the income should have been added thereto in the name of future prospects. So, adding Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- assessed as income of the deceased, I find a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of calculation of compensation. Deducting 1/3rd therefrom, I find the monthly dependency of the claimants at Rs. 4,000/- which multiplied with 12 brings the annual dependency at Rs. 48,000/-. Multiplying it with 17, the multiplier adopted by learned Tribunal, I find a sum of Rs. 8,16,000/- to have been lost by the claimants in the death of Anil Kumar. Adding to it a sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the conventional heads, I assess a sum of Rs. 8,56,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants. Consequently, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 5,54,000/- to Rs. 8,56,000/-. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 4,56,000/- shall fall to the share of Kanta, appellant No. 1 and a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each shall fall to the share of appellants No. 2 and 3. The other terms regarding rate of interest etc. appearing in the award of the Tribunal shall remain the same.