Paramjeet Kaur & others vs Harbinder Kumar @ Binder & ors

,,,

B.S. Walia, J.",,,

Appeal has been filed by the widow and three children of deceased Ravinderpal Singh i.e husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos.2,,,

to 4 who died in a motor vehicle accident on 13.7.2000 at the age of 49 yrs. Date of birth of deceased was 9.9.1951. He was employed as a Manager,,,

in Punjab National Bank, Mullanpur and was getting gross monthly salary of Rs.20,546/-. The Tribunal assessed income of the deceased as",,,

Rs.18,046/- after deducting 2500/- as income tax payable and thereafter by making deduction of 1/3rd of the income i.e Rs.6,046/- towards personal",,,

expenses of the deceased worked out monthly dependency of Rs.12,000/- and annual dependency of Rs.1,44,000/-. By applying multiplier of 11,",,,

compensation on account of dependency was worked out at Rs.15,84,000/-.",,,

Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the award on the ground that since the deceased was 49 years of age, therefore in terms of",,,

paragraph No.44 of the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others-2017(4) RCR,,,

(Civil) 1009 upholding decision in 'Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation', 2009 ACJ 1298, multiplier of 13 was to be applied.",,,

Secondly by relying upon the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) upholding decision in Sarla Verma’s case,,,

(supra), learned counsel contended that in view of 4 dependents of the deceased, 1/4th deduction from income was to be made towards personal",,,

expenses instead of 1/3rd.,,,

Learned counsel further contends that the award is also liable to be modified on the ground that only a sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards",,,

loss of consortium, Rs.6,000/- towards funeral expenses and no amount was awarded on account of loss of estate whereas as per paragraph 61(viii)",,,

of the decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) a sum of Rs.40,000/- is liable to be awarded on account of loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards",,,

funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate respectively. Accordingly, learned counsel contends that amount payable as compensation on",,,

account of conventional heads is liable to be enhanced to Rs.70,000/-. Lastly, learned counsel contends that no amount has been awarded towards",,,

future prospects and in view of paragraph No.42 of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) in view of the deceased,,,

being employed against a fixed salary and being less than 50 years of age, 30% of his income was to be added for working out future prospects.",,,

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company on the other hand very fairly states that the amount claimed by the appellants is in consonance with,,,

the latest pronouncement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). However, the amount which is to be added for ascertaining",,,

the future prospects payable is to be subject to payment of income tax.,,,

Learned counsel for the respondents assails the award only to the extent of award of interest @ 9% instead of 7.5% and prays that the rate of,,,

interest be reduced to 7.5%.,,,

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.,,,

As per para No.42 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), multiplier of 13 is to be applied in case the",,,

deceased was 49 years of age. Since the deceased was 49 years of age, accordingly multiplier of 13 and not 11 is applicable. Relevant extract of the",,,

decision in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) is reproduced as under :-,,,

“42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the table above (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.â€​,,,

Likewise, since number of dependents of the deceased were four therefore, personal expenses was to be deducted from the income of the",,,

deceased @ 1/4th and not 1/3rd in terms of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Relevant extract of the decision,,,

in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) is reproduced as under :,,,

“39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectible",,,

from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards",,,

personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, 31 and 32, Sarla Verma lays down:-",,,

“30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok,,,

Chandra4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this 37 (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601",,,

31 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 exceeds six.â€​",,,

In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-",,,

v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30",,,

to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.â€​,,,

Thirdly, the compensation payable on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is to be awarded @ Rs.40,000/-,",,,

Rs.15,000 and Rs.15,000/- respectively whereas the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.6000/-, on account of loss of consortium",,,

and funeral expenses only.,,,

Accordingly, the amount payable on account of conventional head is enhanced to the amount in terms of para No.61 of the decision of Hon'ble the",,,

Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Paragraph No.61 (viii) of the decision in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) is reproduced as under:-,,,

“61(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-,",,,

Rs.40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.â€​",,,

Resultantly, the appellants shall be entitled to lumpsum of Rs.70,000/-on account of conventional heads.",,,

As regards the award of future prospects, as per paragraph No.42 of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra)",,,

Sr.

No.",Head,"Amount assessed by

Tribunal in `","Amount assessed by this

Court in `

1,Income,"18,046/-",No change

2,Future prospects,NIL,@ 30%= 5414

3,Total income assessed,18046/-,"23,460/-

5,"Deduction towards

personal expenses of

deceased.","rd

6015/- (1/3 )","th)

5865- (1/4

4,Dependency arrived at,"12,000/-","17,595/-

6,Multiplier applied,11,13

7,Compensation awarded,"12000x12x11 =

15,84,000/-","17595x12x13 =

27,44,820/-

8,Loss of consortium,"10,000/-","40,000/-

9,Funeral expenses,"6,000/-","15,000/-

10.,Loss of Estate,Nil,"15,000/-

,Total,"16,00,000/-","28,14,820/-