Shivkunwar vs Dhaniram

This appeal arises out of the award dated 20.11.2015 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 63/2014 awarding a compensation of Rs.5,07,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants for their irreparable loss.

The averment in the claim petition, in brief, is that on 02.12.2013 at about 9:15 pm, Parshuram along with Tameshwar Singh was going on his motor cycle from Pali to Bilaspur and when they reached near Naman Dhaba, Pali, driver/respondent No. 1 of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. CG-10-C-7122 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle, due to which, they sustained grievous injuries and the deceased (Parshuram) and Tameshwar were died on the spot. A report was lodged, based on which offence was registered. It is stated that on the date of the accident, the age of the deceased (Parshuram) was 24 years, he was working in Maruti Power Ltd and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month from his work. Due to the casual death of the deceased, there is an irreparable loss to the appellants. Therefore, the appellants (mother, sister and brothers of the deceased) preferred an application to claim a total compensation of Rs. 33,55,000/-.

When the claim application for compensation was filed by mother, real sister and brothers of deceased Parshuram before the claims tribunal against the driver, owner and insurance company of the alleged vehicle, the tribunal held that, though the income certificate vide Ex.A/8, issued by M/s Maya Construction has been produced, but is no document regarding the work of Fitter in Maya Construction. Amit Majumdar (PW-03) has stated in his cross-examination that the owner, partner and manager of Maruti Power Limited have the authority to issue salary certificates. Amit Majumdar has further stated that he recently does not work in Maya Construction of Maruti Power Limited. There is no witness regarding how long Amit Majumdar worked in Maya Construction of Maruti Power Plant. While issuing the salary certificate, Amit Majumdar has not even mentioned, that he was working with Maruti Power Plant. Therefore, the work done by the deceased Parashuram in Maruti Power Plant is not proven and the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per month is also not proven. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken income of the deceased as Rs 48,000/- per annum in absence of valid documentary proof of income. The deceased was aged about 25 years (as per postmortem report) and therefore, as per Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, multiplier of 18 was applied and calculated total income as Rs. 8,64,000/- and the claimants are the mother, sister and brothers of the deceased so after deduction 50% towards personal expenses, the total dependency comes to Rs. 4,32,000/- and on other heads Rs. 75,000/- has been calculated and awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,07,000/-(4,32,000+75,000=5,07,000) with interest @ 7% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants. Hence, this appeal for enhancement.

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that the claimants have pleaded the income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per month and salary certificate, issued by the M/s Maya construction has also been produced, but the learned Claims Tribunal has only assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 48,000/- per annum and total compensation of Rs. 5,07,000/- has been awarded including the amount of other conventional heads of Rs. 75,000/-. The learned counsel urged that the tribunal erred in not considering future prospects while computing compensation as it failed to appreciate that the deceased could have earned much more in the near future if he had not met with the accident as he was only aged about 24 years and could have lived for another 35-40 years. The learned counsel further submits that the father of the deceased had already died and therefore, the real sister and brothers of the deceased are also dependent upon the deceased, but the tribunal has not awarded any compensation to the sister and brothers of the deceased and only awarded compensation in favour of the mother of the deceased. He also submits that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting the income of the deceased towards personal expenses, as per Sarla Verma (supra) 1/3 deduction would work out because sister and brothers of the deceased are also dependent upon the deceased besides the mother because their father had already died. Hence, this appeal may be allowed and needs to be enhanced suitably.

None appeared on behalf of the respondents No. 1 & 2.

On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza.

Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.5,07,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/-. per month from his work, but no valid documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced, but it cannot be said that the deceased was not earning anything from his work. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. specially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages. Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 5,163/- per month as minimum wages, at the relevant time of accident i.e. 02.12.2013. The annual income comes to Rs. 61,956/- per annum. As per  National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 24,782/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 86,738/-.

In the matters of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, it has been held in para 32 as under:

“32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.”

In view of the above, in the instant case, the deceased was aged about 24 years and was unmarried and the claimants are the widow mother, sister and brothers of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3 i.e. is Rs. 28,912/- the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 57,826/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 10,40,868/-. The claimants are further entitled for loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-, for funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- and as per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for loss of love and affection Rs. 40,000/- each i.e. Rs. 1,60,000/-. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 12,30,868/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:-

S.No.

Heads

Calculation

01

Towards loss of dependency

Rs. 10,40,868/-

02

Towards loss of estate

Rs. 15,000/-

03

Towards  love and affection to all the four claimants @ Rs. 40,000/-

Rs.  1,60,000/-

04

Funeral Expenses

Rs. 15,000/-

Total

Rs. 12,30,868/-

Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 12,30,868/-. After deducting Rs. 5,07,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 7,23,868/-.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 7,23,868/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The enhanced amount shall be payable to all four appellants/claimants in equal proportion. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal below. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides.