Smt. Santosh Devi and Others vs Mahendra Singh and Another

Bela M. Trivedi, J.—The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Sikar (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in claim petition No. 260/2005, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,32000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition, till realization, for the death of Shri Raghuveer Singh, who happened to be husband of the appellant No. 1, father of the appellant Nos. 2 & 3 and son of the appellant Nos. 4 & 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Ankit Jain for the appellants that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very inadequate, inasmuch as the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects of the deceased and that the deduction on account of personal expenses made by the Tribunal is also not in consonance with the decision of the Apex Court in case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, However, the learned counsel Mr. Lokesh Atrey for the respondent-national insurance company, submitted that the future prospects should not be considered in case where the deceased was self employed or on fixed wages as per the decision of Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra), which has been confirmed by the Larger Bench in case of Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, According to him the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of consortium was already on the higher side which should not have been more than Rs. 25,000/- and hence the compensation awarded under the other heads should not be increased.

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned award made by the Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal from the evidence on record has considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month, however has not considered the future prospects of the deceased. Of course there are divergent views in the latest judgments of Apex Court in case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, and in case of Reshma Kumari (supra). However, it appears from the ratio of the said judgments that the future prospects of the deceased should have been considered considering the nature and status of employment as also the income of the deceased at the time of death, and accordingly the claimants should be awarded the compensation under the head of loss of dependency to the claimants. In the instant case, there was no cogent evidence adduced by the claimants to show the income of the deceased and hence the Tribunal has rightly taken the base of Rs. 3,000/- per month. Under the circumstances, taking into consideration the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency benefit deserves to be increased by adding 20% of the said income towards the future prospects, meaning thereby 20% of Rs. 3,000/- i.e. 600, which would come to Rs. 3600 per month and Rs. 43,200/- per year. Now if 1/4th deduction is made towards the personal expenses which deceased might have spent on himself, the amount would come to Rs. 32,400/- (43,200-10,800). Now considering the age of the deceased a multiplier of 18 is applied, the amount payable under the head of loss of dependency benefit would come to Rs. 5,83,200/-. The amount awarded under the other heads i.e. Rs. 95,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses are not disturbed though found to be on higher side. Thus total amount of compensation would come to Rs. 6,83,200/-. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants shall be entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,83,200/-. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 5,32,000/-, the respondents jointly and severally shall pay the difference and the interest on the enhanced amount @ 6% per annum from the date of order till realization. The appeal stands partly allowed accordingly.