Ravi Shankar Sharma & Anr vs Mohd. Shamshad & Ors

R.K.Gauba, J

Neha Sharma, aged 24 years, working with M/s. Genius Consultants Ltd., suffered injuries that proved fatal on account of a motor vehicular

accident that took place on 04.10.2008 due to negligent driving of truck bearing registration no.HR-58-5123 which was admittedly insured against third

party risk with the third respondent (insurer).

Her parents (now the appellants) instituted accident claim case (MACA 67/2010) on 10.02.2009 seeking compensation. The said case was clubbed

with another fatal accident claim arising out of the same accident and decided by a common judgment dated 25.07.2011 of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal (Tribunal) holding the truck driver responsible. In the claim of the appellants, compensation in the sum of Rs.10,39,700/- was awarded, it

inclusive of Rs.10,14,663/-towards loss of dependency, Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss to estate and Rs.5,000/- for

funeral expenses. The liability was fastened on the third respondent (insurer) to pay with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.

The claimants are in appeal and press it primarily on three grounds. It is argued that the tribunal failed to take into account the element of future

prospects of increase and applied the multiplier of 13 wrongly going by the age of the mother of the deceased. The last grievance is that the rate of

interest levied is on the lower side.

Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and having gone through the record, this court finds that all the three above noted contentions must

be accepted, the first two following the ruling of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court rendered on 31.10.2017 in SLP (C) 25590/2014,

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.

The last income of the deceased was taken at Rs.1,56,102/- p.a., this on the basis of income tax return submitted during her lifetime by the

deceased. Having regard to the date on which the death occurred, the element of future prospects to the extent of 40% deserves to be added and the

multiplier according to the age of the deceased 18 should be applied.

Thus, the loss of dependency is re-computed as [Rs.1,56,102/- x 140/100 /2 x 18] Rs.19,66,885.2, rounded off to Rs.19,67,000/-(Rupees Nineteen

lakh and sixty seven thousand only).

It would be just and proper to bring the non-pecuniary awards also in sync with the ruling in Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, instead of the above

mentioned awards granted by the tribunal, amount of Rs.15,000/- each are added towards loss to estate and funeral expenses. The total compensation

in the case comes to [Rs.19,67,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/-] Rs.19,97,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh and ninety seven thousand only). The award

is modified accordingly.

Following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of interest is increased to 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till

realization. [see judgment dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors.]

It is noted that the tribunal had apportioned the award granted by it equally amongst the parents. It is directed that the entire enhanced portion of the

award with corresponding effect of the rate of interest shall fall to the share of the second appellant (Usha Sharma / mother), it to be released to her

in the form of interest bearing fixed deposit receipt taken out from a nationalized bank for a period of seven years with right to draw periodic interest.

The insurer is directed to satisfy the enhanced award by requisite deposit with the tribunal within 30 days making it available to be released to the

claimant.

The appeal is disposed of in above terms.