Smt. Rajiya @APPELLANT@Hash Hari Ram

Appellants have filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 04.07.2017 passed by the Tribunal, seeking enhancement of compensation.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to grant compensation towards future prospects of the deceased. In

support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 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 onefifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

Where the deceased was a bachelor and theclaimants 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 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€​

 x x x x x

“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€​

 x x x x

“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.

 x x x x x

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

(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi shouldhave 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 note of the decisionin Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding

precedent.

(iii) While determining the income, an addition of50% 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 was self-employed oron 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 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) The selection of multiplier shall be asindicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.

(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basisfor 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 the respondents 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 Farukh Khan

in the motor vehicle accident which had occurred on 21.04.2016. In the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the income of the

deceased, Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,226/- per month, in view of the minimum wages fixed by the State.

Claimants are the widow, parents and brothers of the deceased. So far as the brothers of the deceased are concerned, they cannot be treated as the

dependents of the deceased.

Keeping in view the number of claimants, one-third of the income of the deceased was liable to be deducted towards his personal expenses to work

out the dependency of the claimants. Deceased was aged about 22 years, at the time of accident. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier

of ‘18’ to work out the dependency of the claimants. Thus, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 3484/X 12 X 18 = Rs. 7,52, 544/-.

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. 3,01,017/-. Claimants would be further entitled to receive Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral

expenses. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 7,52, 544/- + Rs. 3,01,017/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- = Rs. 11,08,561/-.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award dated 04.07.2017 is modified to the extent that the claimants No. 1 to 3 would be entitled to

receive Rs. 11,08,561/- by way of compensation instead of Rs. 9,37,540/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the

impugned award shall remain same. It is further ordered that the share of enhanced amount of compensation of the claimants be invested in Fixed

Deposit Receipts with a nationalised Bank initially, for a period of three years and the interest accrued upon the deposit shall be paid to the claimants

on monthly basis. The Secretary District Legal Services Authority, Ajmer shall invest the amount in F.D.R. in the name of the Claimants in some

nationalised Bank. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Ajmer shall apprise the claimants regarding the amount which has been granted

to them by way of enhancement and the fact that the enhanced amount shall be invested in F.D.R. in some nationalised bank for their benefit.