Shyam Sunder and Another vs Sunil Sharma and Another

G.P. Mittal, J.—This appeal is for enhancement of compensation in respect of death of Anuj Sharma, who was aged about 25 years at the

time of accident, which took place on 7th December, 1999. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the impugned award dated 8th December,

2009 granted a compensation of Rs. 6,14,275/-. The contentions raised on appellant''s behalf are :

(i) The deceased was offered a salary of $ 50, 000 per year by the letter dated 27th September, 1999 mark ''A''. The deceased was to join his

new employment in USA. The deceased''s salary, therefore, ought to have been considered $ 50, 000 per year and compensation should have

been granted accordingly.

(ii) The multiplier should have been applied as per the deceased''s age, which was 25 years or in any case as per mother''s age which was 42 years

on 6th September, 1991 according to the photocopy of the Ration Card and thus 50 years at the time of accident.

(iii) The accident took place on 7th December, 1999, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 21st December, 1999, therefore, some

compensation ought to have been awarded on account of pain and suffering.

Contention No. 1

I have gone through the offer of appointment purported to be given by M/s. R. Systems INC. The authenticity of this letter was not proved.

Moreover, page 6 of this letter clearly shows that the offer was valid for 15 days from the date of letter thus the offer lapsed on 12th October,

1999. In this view of the matter the letter mark ''A'' cannot be taken into consideration to determine the appellant''s dependency.

Contention No. 2

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 : 2003 (2) TAC. 18

(SC), the Hon''ble Supreme Court laid down the following principles 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 Multiplier

(in years)

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 : 1/3rd (33. 33%)

large and dependent on the income of the

deceased.

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 Actual salary - tax + 50% towards future

years of age prospects.

(ii) Permanent job: Between 40- Actual salary - tax + 30% towards future

50 years prospects.

(iii) More than 50 years with : Actual salary only. No addition for future

permanent job. prospects.

(iv) Deceased employed at a Only actual income to be : taken No

fixed salary (without provisionaddition.

for Annual increments)

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 Nil

and hardship:

(iv) Funeral expenses, cost of: Actual

transportation of body and medical

expenses

It is urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that as per Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation, it was held that age of the

deceased was to be taken into consideration for the purpose of selection of multiplier. This position, according to the learned Counsel, was

clarified by the Supreme Court in the later decision in P.S. Somanathan and Others Vs. District Insurance Officer and Another,

I am not inclined to agree with the contention raised on Appellant''s behalf. In Sarla Verma (supra) the Supreme Court considered and

approved U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, where it was laid down that while applying the

multiplier the age of the claimant or that of the deceased, whichever is higher is to be considered. It is very obvious that the multiplier has to be

applied as per the age of the deceased or the claimants whichever is lower because if the claimants are very old the dependency would soon come

to an end early and likewise if the deceased is very old he would survive for the lesser years as compared to the claimants. In the latest decision of

the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shyam Singh & Ors., 2007 (11) SCC. 365, the Supreme Court approved the multiplier of 8

applied by the Tribunal by taking the average age of the parents of the deceased, who were 55 and 56 years of age. In the circumstances there is

no manner of doubt that the multiplier according to the age of the claimants or the deceased whichever is lower has to be selected for the purpose

of calculation of dependency.

Turning to the facts of the instant case the mother''s age is claimed to be 50 years on the basis of the Ration Card Ext. PW-5/15 issued in the

year 1991. Generally, age in a Ration Card is mentioned only by approximation and the same cannot be presumed to be the accurate age. It may

be noticed that in the Ration Card, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 10 years, which would imply that the age of the deceased on the date

of the accident was just 19 years, which was not correct. In fact, his age was 25 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the age of Appellant

No. 2 can be inferred from the claim petition filed by the Appellants in the year 2002 where her age was mentioned as 62 years. Thus, I take the

age of the deceased''s mother to be 59 years on the date of the incident.

For the purpose of computing the income of the deceased a reference can be made to his Form-16 Ext. PW-5/12 wherein the gross salary of

the deceased is mentioned as Rs. 1,05,550/-. After deducting the conveyance, HRA and standard deductions from the gross salary, the income of

the deceased comes out to be Rs. 47, 673/-, which is not taxable. The Tribunal, however, ought not to have deducted the conveyance and HRA

as these were part of the deceased''s income. That being so, the net income of the deceased shall be considered as Rs. 1,05,550/-; adding 50%

towards future prospects and deducting half towards his personal expenses, multiplicand comes to Rs. 79,162/-. Now, applying the multiplier of 9

(according to the age of the mother) to the said amount, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 7,12,458/- After adding conventional sum of Rs.

25,000/- towards love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate. In addition, Rs. 10,000/-

towards treatment (before the deceased''s death). The total compensation comes to Rs. 7,57,458/-. Appellants would be entitled to interest @ 7.

5% per annum on the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,43,183/- from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount, which the

Respondent No. 1 (Sunil Sharma) and Respondent No. 2 (Insurance Company) are liable to pay jointly and severally. Respondent Insurance Co.

is directed to make the payment of enhanced compensation within six weeks from the date of this order. 30% of the enhanced compensation shall

be released to the Appellants immediately in equal shares. Rest of the amount shall be held in Fixed Deposit for a period of three years. The appeal

is allowed in above terms. No cost.