Smt. Kamlesh, Kamla And Ors. @APPELLANT@Hash Rajkumar & Ors.

Appellants have filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 23.11.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, seeking enhancement of

compensation.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal had granted compensation on a lower side. Tribunal has erred in taking the income

of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month, whereas, the income of the deceased was liable to be calculated in terms of Exhibit-15 to Exhibit-17.

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, have opposed the appeal and have submitted that the Tribunal has already granted

compensation to the appellants on a higher side.Â

It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and others AIR 2017 (SC) 4973 , as

under:-Â

“39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectible

from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards

personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, 31 and 32, Sarla Verma lays down:-

“30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok

Chandra4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this 37 (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601

31 Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be

one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to

6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

31. Where the deceased was a bachelor andthe claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors,

normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even

otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be

cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and

the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as

dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

32. Thus even if the deceased is survived byparents 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 and

dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger nonearning 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.â€​

 “44. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the claims tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in paragraph 19 of Sarla

Verma read with paragraph 42 of the said judgment. For the sake of completeness, paragraph 42 is extracted below :-

“42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma

Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by

one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for

46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-

5 for 66 to 70 years.â€​

 “59. Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price

index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future

prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be

reasonable.

 “61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-

(i)Â The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devishould have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than

what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a

contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.

(ii)Â As Rajesh has not taken note of thedecision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a

binding precedent.

(iii)Â While determining the income, anaddition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased

had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was 48 between 40

to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary

less tax.

(iv)Â In case the deceased was self-employedor on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the

deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the

deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the

income minus the tax component.

(v)Â For determination of the multiplicand, thededuction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs

30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

(vi)Â The selection of multiplier shall be asindicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.

(vii)Â The age of the deceased should be thebasis for applying the multiplier.

(viii)Â Reasonable figures on conventionalheads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/-

and Rs. 15,000/respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.â€​

Appellants had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of death of Visram in the

motor vehicle accident, which had occurred on 22.10.2009.

 With regard to the income of the deceased, appellants had placed reliance on Exhibit-15 to Exhibit-17 in this regard. Appellants had examined AW-

3 Dilip Kumar Das to prove Exhibit15 to Exhibit-17. However, the said witness in his crossexamination deposed that the documents Exhibit-15 to

Exhibit-17 were not signed by him and were signed by the proprietor of the firm. He had not brought the record on the basis of which the said

documents had been prepared. He had also not brought the record to establish that the deceased was in-fact working as a commission agent with

‘The tractor station’. In these circumstances, no reliance could be placed on Exhibit-15 to Exhibit-17 to determine the income of the deceased.

Hence, the income of the deceased was liable to be determined as per minimum wages fixed by the State. As per the minimum wages fixed by the

State, a daily wager was expected to earn at least Rs.3,000/- per month at the relevant time. Out of the said amount, 1/4th was liable to be deducted

towards personal expenses of the deceased to workout the dependency of the appellants. Admittedly, deceased was 37 years old at the time of

accident as per material on record with regard to his date of birth. Thus, appropriate multiplier in the present case to work-out the dependency of the

appellants would be 15. Thus, the compensation amount comes to Rs. 2,250/- X 12 X 15 = Rs. 4,05,000/-. Appellants would be further entitled to

receive an addition of 40% of the said amount towards future prospects of the deceased and the said amount comes to Rs. 1,62,000/-. Appellants

would be further entitled to receive Rs. 40,000/towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Admittedly, the medical bills

with regard to the treatment of the deceased before his death available on record are to the tune of Rs. 3,23,130/-. Deceased had remained admitted

in the hospital for about 19 days before his death. Thus, the amount of Rs. 9,500/- must have been spent towards hospital expenses. Hence, the total

compensation comes to Rs. 4,05,000/- + Rs. 1,62,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 3,23,130/- + Rs. 9,500/- = Rs. 9,54,630/-.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award dated 23.11.2011 is modified to the extent that the appellants would be entitled to receive

compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,54,630/instead of Rs. 9,34,130/- awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the award shall remain

the same.