Madhu Chopra And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others

Suvir Sehgal, J

The claimants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short "the Tribunal") vide award dated 24.07.2017 passed in Motor Accident's case No.584 of 2.11.2016 titled as "Smt. Madhu Chopra and others Vs. State of Haryana and others".

The claimants i.e. Madhu Chopra, widow of the deceased (appellant No.1), Nivedita Chopra, unmarried daughter of deceased (appellant No.2), Mayank Chopra, major son of the deceased (appellant No.3), Shanti Devi Chopra, widowed mother of the deceased (appellant No.4) and Divya Chopra Khanna, married daughter of the deceased (appellant No.5) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of the death of Kuldeep Kumar Chopra, aged 57 years, who was working as Chief Manager with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sector 17, Chandigarh. He died due to injuries sustained by him when he fell from a rashly driven Haryana Roadways bus on 13.08.2016 in Panchkula.

Upon notice, the respondents appeared and contested the claim petition. The Tribunal framed the issues and evidence was recorded. On the basis of the material produced on the record and taking into account the arguments raised by the counsel for the parties, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that Kuldeep Kumar Chopra died as a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by the driver-respondent No.3. The Tribunal also found that the driver had a valid driving licence Ex.R-1 and the bus was covered by the insurance policy issued by respondent No.4. The Tribunal, on the basis of the salary slip, Ex.P-1 found that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.97,593.94 paisa for the month of July, 2016 and his annual income came to Rs.11,71,080/- (Rs.97,590/-(rounded off) x12). After adjusting the income tax and education cess, the Tribunal found the annual income to be Rs.9,89,624/-. The Tribunal further held that the major son and the married daughter were not dependent upon the deceased and cannot be held entitled to any compensation. It came to the conclusion that the deceased had left behind three dependents i.e. his widow, unmarried daughter and mother, and after deducting 1/3rd of the assessed income towards expenditure of the deceased upon himself, found the net annual loss of dependency to be Rs.6,59,750/- (Rs.9,89,624-Rs.3,29,874). As the deceased was 57 years of age at the time of his death, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 9 and after making an addition of Rs.1,25,000 on account of loss of consortium and funeral expenses, it came to the total compensation figure of Rs.61,47,435/- (Rs.6,59,750/-x9=59,37,750+Rs.1,25,000) The Tribunal held all the respondents to be jointly and severally liable to make the payment of the compensation. The Tribunal further granted interest on the compensation amount @ 7½% per annum from the date of application till realization and directed that the awarded amount shall be shared by the claimants in the following manner:

(i) Appellant No.1 (widow) -60%

(ii) Appellant No.2 (unmarried daughter/son)-30%

(iii) Appellant No.4 (mother)-10%

Aggrieved against the compensation awarded, the claimants have filed the instant appeal seeking increase of the compensation amount to Rs.2 Crores.

Counsel for the appellants has sought enhancement on three counts. Firstly, he has urged that the claimants are entitled to addition of 15% to the salary of the deceased towards future prospects. Secondly, he argues that even though appellant No.3 was a major son of the deceased, but he was studying and the Tribunal erred in excluding him while imposing a cut on the income of the deceased for his personal expenses.

In other words, counsel has contended that deceased was spending ¼th of his assessed income on himself. Thirdly, counsel has submitted that the medical expenses as discussed in para 24 of the award has not been included.

The arguments have been opposed by the counsel representing the respondents, who have submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and the award does not require any modification.

I have considered the submissions made by the respective counsel for the parties.

At the outset, it may be observed that the findings of the Tribunal as to the death of Kuldeep Kumar Chopra in an accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by respondent No.3, who was holding a valid driving licence and the fact that the claimants are the dependents of the deceased and entitled to compensation on account of his death from the respondents, who are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the same, has not been challenged by the respondents by filing an appeal or cross-objection. Even otherwise, the said findings being based on proper appreciation of the evidence on the record, are not liable to be interfered.

The first submission of the counsel for the appellants has to be answered in his favour. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017ACJ 2700 held that while determining the income of a deceased, who had a permanent job and was between the age of 50 and 60 on his death, an addition of 15% of the actual salary has to be made to his income.

Dealing with the second submission of the appellants, it deserves to be noticed that in National Insurance Company Vs. Birender and others, 2020 ACJ 759, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even major, married and earning sons of the deceased, being legal representatives, have a right to apply for compensation and the Tribunal would be duty bound to consider the claim irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads. During the pendency of present appeal, appellant No.3 has filed an affidavit to the effect that on the date of the accident, he was a student of the 5th Semester and studying in 3rd year of B.Tech. It is, therefore, apparent that appellant No.3 was dependent upon the deceased. As a result, the number of dependents left behind by the deceased have to be considered to be four, i.e. appellant No.1-widow, appellant No.2-unmarried daughter, appellant No.3-major son and appellant No.4-widowed mother. Accordingly, 1/4th of the assessed income of the deceased is to be treated as an expense by the deceased upon himself. Lastly, insofar as medical expenses are concerned, there is no dispute that the amount has to be added.

After accepting the claim of the appellants on the above counts, the total amount payable to the appellants works out to be as under:-

Total

Rs.13,46,742/-

Income Tax and Education cess

Upto Rs.2,50,000/-

Nil

Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- =10%

Rs.25,000/-

Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/ =20%

Rs.1,00,000/-

Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.13,46,742/- = 30%

Rs.1,04,023/-

Total Income Tax

Rs.2,29,023/-

Education Cess @ 3%

Rs. 6871/-

Rs.2,35,894/-

Less: Income Tax and Education Cess

Rs.2,35,894/-

Rs.11,10,848/-

Less: Deduction of ¼th for personal expenses

Rs.2,77,712/-

Rs.8,33,136/-

Multiplier of 9

x 9

Rs.74,98,224/-

Less: Awarded by Tribunal

Rs.61,47,435/-

Total

Rs.13,50,789/-

Add Medical bill (Ex.P-6)

Rs. 84,685/-

Enhanced compensation due

Rs.14,35,474/-

Consequently, the enhanced amount of Rs.14,35,474/- is ordered to be paid by the respondents in favour of appellants No.1 to 4 along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of application till realization in the same proportion as awarded by the Tribunal within a period of four weeks by way of ECS transfer to the bank account of the appellants. The period of four weeks shall start from the date the bank account particulars of the appellants are furnished.