Smt. Manju Devi @APPELLANT@Hash Iffco Tokio Insurance Company Ltd.

Appellants have filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 18.01.2017 passed by the Tribunal, seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal was on a lower side and requires

enhancement. Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased on a lower side and has not granted compensation towards future prospects of the

deceased. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National

Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and others AIR 2017 (SC) 4973, wherein it was held as under:-

  “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.

Where the deceased was abachelor and the 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.

Thus even if the deceased issurvived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated

as the personal and iving 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) The two-Judge Bench inSantosh Devi should 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) As Rajesh has not taken noteof the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding

precedent.

(iii) While determining theincome, an additionof 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) In case the deceased wasself-employed or 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) For determination of themultiplicand, the deduction 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) The selection of multipliershall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.

(vii) The age of the deceasedshould be the basis for applying the multiplier.

(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, 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€​

Learned counsel for respondents no.1 & 7 have opposed the appeal.

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

Prasad in the motor-vehicle accident which had occurred on 11.5.2008. Appellants/claimants are the widow, son and parents of the deceased.

Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. There was no documentary evidence on record with regard to the income of

the deceased. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased by taking him as a skilled worker on the

basis of the minimum wages fixed by the State. The income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal does not require any interference.

Keeping in view the relationship of the claimants, one-third (1/3rd) out of the income of the deceased was liable to be deducted towards his personal

expenses. Deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of the accident. Hence, the appropriate multiplier to work out the dependency of the

claimants would be ‘17’.

Thus, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.4,08,000/-. Claimants 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.1,63,200/-. Claimants would be further entitled to

receive Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

Thus, claimants would be entitled to receive, in all, Rs.4,08,000/- + Rs.1,63,200/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/- = Rs.6,26,200/-. Claimants have already

been granted compensation to the tune of Rs.6,29,000/- by way of compensation by the Tribunal.

Hence, the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal does not require any enhancement.

Dismissed.