Nainu Singh and Others vs Ram Singh and Others

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—1. On 8.12.2002, Laxman Singh was travelling in bus bearing Registration No. RRE-3551. The bus was going towards Beawar. At about 11:30 AM, near Shivpura Ghata, due to rash and negligent driving of the non-claimant-respondent No. 1, the bus turned turtle. As a result whereof, Laxman Singh, Puna Singh, Tej Singh and Panna Singh died and others suffered injuries.

The parents of deceased Laxman Singh, his widow and four minor children filed a claim petition. The Tribunal in its award dated 29.9.2005, determined the income of the deceased as Rs. 70/- per day and assessed the same to be Rs. 25,200/- per annum. The Tribunal further held that 1/3rd is liable to be deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased. Thereafter, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17 and assessed the compensation as Rs. 2,85,600/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of affection. In total the Tribunal awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,92,600/-.

Counsel appearing for the claimant-appellants has contended that as per ratio of law laid down in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in , A.I.R. 2009 S.C. 3104, where the number of dependant family members is four to six, one-fourth (1/4th) is to be deducted towards "Personal Living Expenses".

It will be apposite to note here Para 14 of the judgment rendered in Smt. Sarla Verma and others (supra) as under:--

"14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that 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 members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six."

Consequently, relying upon Sarla Verma''s case (supra), this Court is of view that instead of 1/3rd deduction towards "Personal Living Expenses", it will be appropriate to deduct one-fourth (1/4th) towards "Personal Living Expenses" of the deceased.

The learned counsel for the appellants has further relied upon the case of Rajesh and Others v. Rajbir Singh and Others, reported in AIR 2003 SC 674, to contend that since the deceased Laxman Singh was less than 40 years of age, and was self-employed, the Tribunal should have awarded 50% towards future prospects.

Counsel appearing for the claimant-appellants has submitted that in the case of Rajesh & Ors. (supra) three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that in case, deceased is less than forty-years of age and is self-employed with fixed wages, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects.

It will be apposite to note here Para 11 of the judgment rendered in the case of Rajesh & Others (supra):--

"Since, the Court in Santosh Devi''s case (supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma''s case (supra) and to make it applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years."

The above view of the Supreme Court has been recently followed by another three-judge Bench in the case of Munna Lal Jain and another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, reported in , MACD 2015 (SC) 139.

I find merit in this contention also.

In the present case, ld. tribunal has gravely erred in not awarding any amount under the head of "loss of consortium".

In the case of Rajesh and Others (supra) in Para 20, Supreme Court has observed as under:--

"20. The ratio of a decision of this Court, on a legal issue is a precedent. But an observation made by this Court, mainly to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio-economic issue, as contrasted from a legal principle, though a precedent, can be, and in fact ought to be periodically revisited, as observed in Santhosh Devi (supra). We may therefore, revisit the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses. It may be noted that the sum of Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 10,000/- in those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In Sarla Verma''s case (supra), it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-, In legal parlance, ''consortium'' is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our Courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English Courts have also recognized the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse''s affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium."

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that so far income of the deceased Laxman Singh assessed by the Tribunal is concerned, no interference is warranted. Hence, income of the deceased is held to be Rs. 2100/- per month. So far multiplier is concerned, again no interference is warranted. However, this Court is of the view that in its award the Tribunal below has gravely erred to deduct 1/3rd for personal living and expenses of the deceased. In the present case, as the number of dependents of the deceased were six. Hence, as per Sarla Verma (supra) 1/4th should have been deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal further erred not to award 50% of the income towards future prospects. This Court also find under the head of care and guidance for minor children and loss of care and service to the parents the amount awarded is also on the lower side. Furthermore, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, which is also on the lower side.

As a result of above discussions, the compensation to be awarded to the claimant-appellants by learned Tribunal is required to be reassessed as under:--

Thus, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 6,96,950/- in above terms. The said amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

It is hereby, ordered that the enhanced amount shall be kept in the Monthly Income Scheme in the post office initially for a lock-up period of three years and the interest accrued upon the deposit shall be paid to the claimants proportionately on monthly basis.

The trial court in the best interest of the claimants, shall keep the amount in the Monthly Income Scheme with the Indian Post Office and shall open separate accounts in the name of each claimant. The amount due to minor daughter shall be encashed at the time of her marriage.

However, a further direction is hereby, issued to the concerned Secretary, District Legal Services Authority to acquaint the claimants regarding the amount, which has accrued to them by way of enhancement and the fact that the amount shall be kept in Monthly Income Scheme in the Indian Post Office for the benefit of the claimants.

The above direction regarding deposit in Monthly Income Scheme with Indian Post Office has been issued as it has been brought to the notice of this Court, that go between or relations fritter away with the amount awarded as compensation, on the ground that money has been spent towards litigation expenses.

With the above modification in the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bewar, present appeal stands disposed of.