Smt. Anari Devi vs Shri Tilak Raj and Another

S.K.Mahajan, J.—ADMIT.

With the consent of the parties, matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.

The appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of her son who had died in a road

accident on 18.5.1997 caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The deceased at the time of the accident was 18 years of

age and was allegedly working as a conductor on a salary of Rs. 4,500/- per month. The appellant who is the mother of the deceased was about

45 years of age at the time of the accident. After holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle

the tribunal also held that the appellant being the mother of the deceased was entitled to compensation. The Tribunal, however, did not believe the

evidence of the appellant that the deceased was employed as a conductor on a salary of Rs. 4,500/- per month taking the income of the deceased

to be the minimum wages under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, the Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency at 2/3 of such income

and applying the multiplier of 12 awarded a sum of Rs. 1,71,216/- towards loss of dependency. Adding to this, another sum of Rs. 9,000/-

towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, etc., total sum of Rs. 1,80,216/- was awarded by way of compensation to the appellant. As already

mentioned above, being dissatisfied with this award, appellant has filed the present appeal.

The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had placed on record the letter from the employer of the deceased,

which shows that the deceased was engaged as a conductor on a salary of Rs. 4,500/- per month. This letter was, however, not proved before the

Tribunal and, in my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly not placed any reliance upon the same. However, at the time of award of compensation, the

Tribunal has admittedly not taken into consideration the future prospects in life and career of the deceased. It is now well-settled that while

assessing the loss of dependency to the family of the deceased, the courts are required to take into consideration the future prospects in the life and

career of the deceased. The income of the deceased has been taken to be the minimum wage under the Minimum Wages Act. At the relevant time,

the minimum wage in respect of an unskilled worker was Rs. 1,784/- per month. As on 1.8.2002, minimum wage in the case of an unskilled

worker has one up to Rs. 2,679.70 paise. Since because of inflation and rise in cost of living, the minimum wages are also increased from time to

time, the Tribunal, in my opinion, ought to have taken this into consideration. There is already 1 + times increase in the minimum wages from the

date of the death of the deceased during the last five years. This Court will, Therefore, not be in error in taking the average income of the deceased

at Rs. 2,700/- per month. Deducting 1/3 from this amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency to the family would

come to Rs. 1,800/- per month or say Rs. 21,600/- per year. The age of the appellant who is the mother of the deceased has been taken to be 45

years by the Tribunal. In terms of the second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act for the age of 45 years, the multiplier of 15 has to be applied.

Applying the multiplier of 15 to the loss of dependency, a total sum of Rs. 3,24,000/- would be payable to the appellant towards loss of

dependency. Adding to this, another sum of Rs. 9,000/-, as has been awarded by the Tribunal, towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, etc.,

the appellant will be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 3,33,000/-.

I, accordingly, allow this appeal and direct that the appellant will be entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,33,000/-. The appellant will also be

entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the application before the Tribunal till payment. In the

facts of this case, however, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.