Shiva Ram Singh and Another vs Sudha Rani and Others

G.P. Mittal, J.—This appeal is for enhancement of amount of compensation in respect of death of Sunil Chauhan, who was aged about 31 years at the time of the accident which took place on 17th June, 2005. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (the Tribunal) by the impugned award dated 22.7.2010 granted compensation of Rs.21,86,000/-.

The Appellants'' grievance is that the actual income of the deceased as per the salary certificate, i.e., Rs.17,500/- was not considered, though the he was a disabled employee; his future prospects were not taken into account and in spite of the fact that there were four dependants, i.e., widow, mother and two children, a deduction of 1/3 towards personal expenses was made instead of 1/4.

I find sufficient substance in the contention raised on appellants'' behalf.

After taking note of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, ; Smt. Sarla Dixit and another Vs. Balwant Yadav and others, ; Abati Bezbaruah v. Geological Survey of India (2003) 2 SCC 148, the Hon''ble Supreme Court laid down the following principles for grant of compensation in death cases in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, as under:

I. MULTIPLIER

Age of the deceased (in years)

Multiplier

15-20

18

21-25

18

26-30

17

31-35

16

36-40

15

41-45

14

46-50

13

51-55

11

56-60

09

61-65

07

Above 65

05

II. DEDUCTION FOR PERSONAL AND LIVING EXPENSES

Deceased - unmarried

(i)

Deduction towards personal expenses.

: 1/2 (50%)

(ii)

Deduction where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased.

: 1/3rd (33.33%)

Deceased - married

(i)

2 to 3 dependent family members.

: 1/3rd

(ii)

4 to 6 dependent family members

: 1/4th

(iii)

More than 6 family members

: 1/5th

(iv)

Subject to the evidence to the contrary.

: Father, brother and sisters will not be considered as dependents.

III. FUTURE PROSPECTS

(i)

Permanent job Below 40 years of age

: Actual salary - tax + 50% towards future prospects.

(ii)

Permanent job Between 40-50 years

: Actual salary - tax + 30% towards future prospects.

(iii)

More than 50 years with: Permanent job

: Actual salary only. No addition for future prospects

(iv)

Deceased employed at a fixed Salary (without provision for Annual increments)

: Only actual income to be taken. No addition.

IV. NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES

(i)

Compensation for loss of estate

: Rs.5,000/- to

Rs.10,000/-

(ii)

Compensation for loss of consortium

: Rs.5,000/- to

Rs.10,000/-

(iii)

Compensation for pain and sufferings and hardship

Nil

(iv)

Funeral expenses, cost of transportation of body and medical expenses

Actual

It is well settled law that while applying the multiplier, the age of the Claimant/that of the deceased whichever is higher is to be considered. ( U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, ).

In the case of death of a bachelor the multiplier will be as per the age of the mother of the deceased.

During evidence, the appellants proved the salary certificate, Ex.PW-3/A, which showed deceased''s gross salary. An amount of Rs.900/- per month on account of PF(Company share), bonus @ Rs.313/- per month(payable annually), medical reimbursement @ Rs.1,000/- per month(payable monthly), leave travel allowance @ Rs.625/- per month(payable annually) were not taken into account while considering the deceased''s income. As per Sarla Verma (supra), it is stated that actual income of the deceased minus income tax has to be considered for determining the dependency. Unfortunately, the Tribunal did not deduct any amount towards payment of income tax and also did not consider the future prospects which ought to have been considered as the deceased was working as an Assistant Manager-Production for the last more than two years in a renowned export house.

The Tribunal also applied the multiplier of 18, though it ought to have been only 16 as per the age of the deceased being 31 years, which was not in dispute. The non-taxable income of the deceased in the year 2005-06 was Rs.1,50,000/-. His net annual income, including future prospects was Rs.17,500 plus 50% x 12 = 3,15,000 - 68,000 (Tax:19000+ 30% of the income above Rs.1,50,000/-) = 2,46,500/- The dependency works out at Rs.2,46,500 minus 25% (personal expenses) x 16 = 29,58,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which cannot be faulted. Normally a conventional sum of Rs.25,000/- is granted towards loss of love and affection but in the facts and circumstances of the case I would not interfere in the same. The total compensation payable, thus, comes to Rs.30,43,000/- as against the award of Rs.21,86,000/- The Tribunal granted interest @ 8% per annum, which cannot be said to be unreasonable. The respondents are liable to pay the enhanced compensation with interest @ 8%.

In view of the foregoing discussion, I hereby award an additional compensation of Rs.8,57,000/- which shall carry interest @ 8% per annum as granted by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.

The appeal stands disposed of.