Pramodlata vs Kishan Lal

Prakash Gupta, J.—The common factual matrix of both the cases is that on 04th October 1991 the respondent No. 1, who was rashly & negligently driving the vehicle bearing No. GAD-5835, hit the motorcycle, bearing No. RJ27-1M-2644 from the rear, whereon appellant No. 1 Smt. Pramodlata and her husband Shri Satish Chandra Kulshreshtra were riding. While the appellant No. 1 sustained multiple injuries, her husband eventually succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.

A Claim Petition No. 371/1991 was filed by the appellants for compensation for a sum of Rs. 22,78,200/- on account of vehicular accident of Shri Satish Chandra Kulshreshtra who died in the said accident. Two other Claim Petitions were also filed, one (No. 372/1991)- by the injured Smt. Pramodlata for compensation and the other (No. 373/2991)- by Rajeev, owner of the motorcycle for damage caused to his vehicle.

Since all the claim petitions arose out of one and the same accident, therefore, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur {herein after referred to as ''the Tribunal''} consolidated them and decided the same together, by a common judgment & award dated 08th December 1999.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues. In support of the claim petitions, the claimants got themselves examined as AW1 Smt. Pramodlata, AW2 Rajeev as well as produced documentary evidence Exhibits 1 to 34. In rebuttal, no evidence was led by the respondents.

The learned Tribunal adjudged issue No. 2, which deals with the quantum of the compensation, partly in favour of the appellants. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award so far as it relates to assessment of the quantum of the compensation awarded, the claimants have preferred these appeals.

As these appeals arose out of one and the same judgment and award dated 08th December 1999 passed by the Tribunal, therefore, both the appeals are being decided by this common order.

Appeal No. 213/2000- Smt. Pramodlata & ors v. Kishan Lal & another

This appeal arose from Claim Petition No. 371/1991, which was filed by the appellants before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 22,78,200/- on account of the motor vehicular accident of Shri Satish Chandra who died in that accident.

It was stated in the petition that the deceased was about 45 years of age and was a government servant, salaried to the tune of Rs. 5000/- per month.

The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Tribunal erroneously failed in not considering not only the income of the deceased to be Rs. 5000/- p.m. while assessing the amount of compensation to be awarded but also the future prospects and probable advancements in the career of the deceased.

The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 8 only, despite the fact that his age was duly proved to be 45 years, thus requisiting that the multiplier of 15 should have been applied.

Moreover, it is alleged that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meager sum towards the loss of consortium, love & affection as also, the funeral expenses incurred. Lastly, it is contended that the rate of interest awarded too is lesser than what should have been awarded. In support of the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment reported in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, .

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the salary of the deceased has not been duly proved to be Rs. 5000/- per month, the same is shown to be only Rs. 3900/- in Ex.11. Also the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants have no force, for they having not been substantiated by any evidence. Thus, the learned Tribunal has appreciated the entire evidence in right perspective.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

So far as contention of the appellant that the deceased was being paid Rs. 5000/- per month is concerned, it is revealed from Ex.11, the Pay Certificate, that the deceased, Shri Satish Chandra was, in fact, paid Rs. 3900/- per month only as salary. The learned Tribunal, therefore, has rightly considered his salary to be Rs. 3900/- per month for determining the amount of the compensation.

However, the learned Tribunal without any rhyme or reason, erroneously applied the multiplier of 8. When the age of the deceased has been proved to be 45 years, which requisitions the multiplier of 13 to be applied as per the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with sec. 163A of the Act and in view of this, the compensation must have been assessed accordingly.

Now, as for the future prospects, the age of the deceased to be 45 years was proved and he was admittedly employed as Assistant Engineer in the Department of Telecommunication in the office of Telecom District Engineer, Udaipur; so he was a salaried person and hence, the dependents are entitled to get an addition of 30% to the actual income while computing the same.

This view has been explicitly laid down by Hon''ble the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and reiterated in Rajesh & others v. Rajbir Singh & others (supra). Relevant para of the former judgment is reproduced below:

"In view of 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 deceased towards future prospects, where 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 of the deceased was 40 to 50 years.

(Emphasis supplied)

As far as the compensation against loss of consortium is concerned, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has grossly failed to appreciate the fact that the deceased died at an early age leaving behind his widow, who was hardly 38 years old and 3 children. The non-pecuniary loss of companionship, love & affection was under-estimated by the learned Tribunal and awarding a nominal sum of Rs. 10,000/-, without furnishing any reason for the same, was unjust and unfair. Hence, looking to the circumstances of the case as also, in view of the judgment in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh''s case (supra), the amount of the compensation for loss of consortium etc. is hereby enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-.

This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the cost of living index has raised as regard the funeral expenses too. The learned Tribunal has had a miser approach towards assessing to the actual expenses incurred in the performance of rituals & rites pursuant to death of a family member. The funeral expenses is a compenditious term and includes not only the payment of crematorium but also every other religious practice which is incidental to the performance of the rites. Awarding of paltry amount of Rs. 2000/- towards the funeral expenses by the learned Tribunal is unjust and improper. This Court considers it proper to grant sum of Rs. 8000/- under this head.

From the above discussion, the compensation must be re-assessed as follows:

As far as the rate of interest is concerned, in my opinion, the Tribunal was justified to award @ 6% per annum.

Accordingly, the award passed in Claim Petition No. 371/1991 is enhanced from Rs. 2,52,000/- to Rs. 5,58,000/- in total. The appellants shall be entitled for the interest at the same rate, as awarded by the Tribunal, on the enhanced amount. As regard the liability of the respondents for enhanced amount is concerned, will be the same as held by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is free to make the distribution of enhanced amount as per its discretion, for which the parties are free to file application.

Appeal No. 218/2000 - Smt. Pramodlata v. Kishan Lal & anr

This appeal arose from the Claim Petition No. 372/1991 wherein by the impugned judgment and award dated 08th December 1999 the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 37,000/- to the appellant against having sustained multiple injuries. Dissatisfied with the same, this appeal is preferred.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant sustained simple and grievous injuries in the above said accident, resulting in permanent disablement and disfiguration. The appellant had to remain under constant treatment for 6 months and hence, the amount of the compensation awarded is not fair and reasonable. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the findings of the learned Tribunal considering it to be just.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record.

The appellant though in her oral examination testified that she was admitted in the hospital for initial 5-6 days after the accident and later was re-admitted for 4-5 months, there is no documentary evidence on record to substantiate her claim to this effect that she was readmitted in the hospital. Further, she claims to have spent Rs. 40,000-50,000 on her medical treatment, which also is not substantiated by any documentary evidence.

In fact, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for simple injury and Rs. 10,000/- for the grievous injury along with Rs. 20,000/- for the 5% permanent disablement to the appellant separately; whereas in the opinion of this Court there was no requirement to award Rs. 10,000/- for grievous injury after awarding Rs. 20,000/- for permanent disablement resulting due to the said injury. In the light of aforesaid reasons, Rs. 37,000/- awarded to the appellant as compensation is just and proper.

From the above discussion, Appeal No. 213/2000 is hereby allowed as indicated above and Appeal No. 218/2000, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.