Satish and Another vs Dinesh Kumar Verma and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is claimants'' appeal against the award dated 20.01.2011 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (for short ''the Tribunal''). Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,25,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of Shri Niwas in a road side accident that took place on 11.03.2009. Since the point in dispute is computation of the compensation, the facts which are required to be mentioned can be reproduced here.

Shri Niwas was aged 48 years. He was working as a sweet-maker and agriculturist and was earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month. He has been survived by his two sons, his widow and his mother. These facts have been denied by the respondents.

Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the income of the deceased is taken at Rs. 4000/- per month by the Tribunal. According to him, no amount has been added to this income in the name of future prospects. According to him, even if in case of self employed, 30% of the income is to be added towards future prospects of income. He has cited before me a decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, where it has been held that addition in the name of future prospects is required to be made at 30% of the income in case of self employed or people working on fixed wages.

It is a case where notice was issued to respondent no. 3, the insurance company only. Since none appeared for the insurance company despite service, respondent no. 3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 04.10.2012. So none is there to oppose the appeal.

It had been laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77 that enhancement of income of the victim is not to be made in case the victim had been self employed or was working on fixed wages. The said decision has been discussed in Santosh Devi''s case supra and it has been held that there is no reason why such enhancement is not made in cases of victims who had been self employed. So following the ratio of Santosh Devi''s case supra, I enhance the income of the deceased by 30% and find a sum of Rs. 5200/- as his monthly income. Applying a cut of 1/3rd to the same and multiplying the remainder with 12, I find a sum of Rs. 41,600/- to be the annual dependency of the claimants-appellants. The suitable multiplier in this case as selected by the Tribunal is 13 and multiplying the annual dependency with 13, I find a sum of Rs. 5,40,800/- as compensation payable to the appellants. Adding to it, a sum of Rs. 9000/- as allowed by the Tribunal in the name of funeral expenses etc., I hold that the appellants are entitled to Rs. 5,49,800/- as compensation on the death of Shri Niwas. In view of the above said discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed and I enhance the compensation awarded in this case by the Tribunal from Rs. 4,25,000/- to Rs. 5,49,800/-, which shall be payable to the appellants with interest and in the proportion as given by learned Tribunal.