Smt. Karam Kaur and Others vs Sh. Harmesh Singh and Others

Reva Khetrapal, J.—By way of this appeal the Appellants, who were the claimants before the Tribunal, seek enhancement of the compensation awarded to them by the Tribunal.

The facts may be briefly delineated as follows. On 03.11.1985, one Jamiat Singh (hereinafter referred to as ''the deceased'') was travelling with his goods in truck no. MWU-2804 owned by the Respondent No. 1 and insured with the Respondent No. 3, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the Respondent No. 2. At the crossing of the Ring Road, Moti Bagh, New Delhi, a car bearing No. 24-CD-5 driven by the Respondent No. 4, owned by the Respondent No. 5 and insured with the Respondent No. 6, coming from Shanti Path side, without blowing any horn or giving any signal, hit against the right side of the truck. On account of the forceful impact caused thereby, both the truck and the car caught fire resulting in three fatalities, viz., the driver of the truck (the Respondent No. 2), the driver of the car owned by Mr. Kaj Mattson, Embassy of Finland (the Respondent No. 4) and the deceased. The deceased was removed to the Safdarjung Hospital where he eventually succumbed to his injuries on 22nd November, 1985.

The factum of insurance of the truck as well as the car with the Respondent No. 3 and the Respondent No. 6 respectively not being in dispute, and the tribunal having come to the conclusion that the accident had taken place on account of the composite negligence of both the vehicles, the claimants were held entitled to recover compensation from the owners and insurers of both the vehicles. The Tribunal then proceeded to compute the loss of dependency of the legal representatives of the deceased and to pass an award of Rs. 2, 15,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 30th April, 1986, i.e. from the date of filing of the petition till realization in favor of the claimants (except the father of the deceased who died during the pendency of the petition) and against the Respondents No. 1, 3 and 6.

Disgruntled with the aforesaid Award, the claimants have approached this Court by filing an appeal with the prayer for setting aside the impugned award and enhancing the quantum of compensation.

The learned Counsel for the Appellants, Mr. Y.R. Sharma, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, to contend that the learned Tribunal had not granted an adequate amount of compensation to the claimants keeping in view the age of the deceased, the income of the deceased, the future prospects of the deceased and the number of dependants whose loss of dependency was required to be computed. He pointed out that the Appellants had proved in evidence that the deceased owned 17 kanals of land in Punjab and was earning a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month by tilling the said land. There was no justification, therefore, for the Tribunal to scale down the income of the deceased to Rs. 30,000/- per annum. It was also contended that the future prospects of the deceased, who was 42 years of age, had not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal despite the fact that in Sarla Verma''s case (supra), the Supreme Court had laid down, as a rule of thumb, that an addition of 30% should be made to the actual income of the deceased towards the future prospects, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. As regards the multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal, it was submitted that the choice of multiplier was misdirected and that the appropriate multiplier, keeping in view the age of the deceased, would be the multiplier of 14. Apart from this, it was urged that the non-pecuniary damages awarded to the Appellants left much to be desired.

Rebutting the aforesaid contentions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Pankaj Seth, on behalf of the Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company, made the following submissions. The income of the deceased who was an agriculturist had been rightly assessed by the Tribunal to be Rs. 30,000/- per year. The deduction of 1/3rd (one-third) towards personal and living expenses of the deceased could not be faulted. The Tribunal had rightly not taken into account the future prospects of the deceased as the deceased was self-employed and it is settled law that where the deceased is self-employed, his future prospects cannot be taken into account for the purpose of determining the compensation payable to his dependants. The grievance raised in respect of the non award of non-pecuniary damages by the learned Tribunal was also unjustified. He contended that the award of both the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages by the learned Tribunal was just and fair. Finally, it was contended by him that the land was still being utilized by the widow and this was an aspect, which deserved to be taken into consideration while computing the compensation payable to the Appellants.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records of the Trial Court, I am of the view that keeping in view the testimony of PW-5, Sh. Amolak Singh from which it stands proved on record that the deceased owned 17 kanals of land (vide fard, Ex. PW5/B), the Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 30,000/- per annum. As regards the future prospects of the deceased, however, the Tribunal erroneously failed to take the same into consideration. The deceased was an agriculturist and it stands to reason that in due course of time his income would have increased from the agricultural produce grown and marketed by him. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court has laid down that as a rule of thumb, an addition of 30% should be made if the age of the deceased is between 40-50 years. The age of the deceased in the instant case has been held by the Tribunal to be 42 years. Hence, the income of the deceased after taking into consideration his future prospects must be assessed to be Rs. 39,000/- per annum. Since the deceased was survived by seven dependant members of his family, after deducting 1/5th (one-fifth) of the income of the deceased, the loss of the dependency of the claimants works out to Rs. 31,200/-. Adopting the multiplier of 14 in consonance with Sarla Verma''s case (supra), the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,36,800/-. The learned Trial Court has already awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on account of loss of consortium and loss of estate and the said award needs no enhancement. The Appellants in the claim petition have, however, claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance, funeral expenses and other religious ceremonies. Since the trial court has not awarded to the Appellant the funeral expenses of the deceased, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded towards the conveyance, funeral expenses, etc. The Appellants are accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,61,800/-, which may be rounded off to Rs. 4,62,000/-.

The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent that the Appellants are held entitled to the enhancement of the award amount to the extent of Rs. 2,47,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The increase in compensation awarded shall inure to the benefit of the widow exclusively and shall be kept in a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank for a period of seven years. The rest of the terms of the award shall remain the same.

The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.