Smt. Umrav Kanwar @APPELLANT@Hash Dhanna Ram

This miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed against the judgment and award dated 18.3.2000 passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur in Motor Accident Claim No.117/1996, whereby the tribunal has awarded Rs.2,25,000/- as

compensation.

Brief facts of the case, as stated, are that on 24.8.1995 at about 04:30 AM Arjun Singh and Hari Singh purchased tractor P.B. 08 J/6704 from Maisi

Fargusan and were going from Basni Jodhpur towards Sirohi. Near Sunaron Ki Piao Village Keru a jeep No.RJ-28-C-0008 collided with the tractor

due to which Hari Singh, Hanwant Singh and Arjun Singh fell down. Hari Singh died on the spot. Arjun Singh suffered grievous injuries and Daulat

Ram also died and other persons suffered injuries. The jeep was driven by non-applicant No.1 Dhanna Ram. Non-applicant No.2 Shri Laxmi Kumar

Vijay was the owner of the vehicle and non-applicant No.3 was the insurance company.

By way of this miscellaneous appeal the appellant challenged the findings on issue No.2 with respect to the award of compensation under various

heads in the claim petition.

The tribunal while deciding the issue held lump sum dependency between Rs.1000-1200 and multiplier of 15 were applied.

It was contended that the deceased was aged 40 years at the time of accident and it was contended that Rs.1000/towards the transportation,

Rs.5000/- towards the expenditure for repairing tractor, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and love affection to the wife and Rs.3000/- each to

appellants No.2 to 5 towards love and affection of their father and total Rs.2,25,000/was awarded to the claimants which is arbitrary, illegal and

unreasonable. Learned tribunal has wrongly held the age of deceased in between 40-45 years. Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on judgment

of Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in MACD 2017(4) (SC) 137 and prayed for enhancement of the

compensation awarded.

Counsel for the respondent Insurance Company Shri UCS Singhvi vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the appellants and contended that the

learned tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation.

In view of the contentions raised by the parties I have perused the pleadings and evidence placed on record.

PW-1 Umrav Kanwar in her statement stated that her husband Hari Singh was aged 34-35 years and he could earn from agriculture and bring

Rs.50,000/- to home. He was also running a kirana shop, out of that he could earn Rs.2000/- per month. Presently a labour is engaged for agriculture

work @ Rs.80/- per day. She also claimed Rs.3000-4000 expenses towards transportation of dead body and stated about expenditure of Rs.15000-

16000 on repairing of the tractor. She further stated that her husband was not a literate person and now she is earning Rs.5000-10000 out of

agriculture. She was having 20 bighas of land. There is one well in the agriculture land without water.

The age of the deceased as per the postmortem report Ex.5 was recorded as 40 years. There is no other evidence placed on record regarding proof

of age.

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that there were five dependents on the income of Hari Singh, therefore, only ¼th expenses has to be

deducted for the personal expenses of deceased Hari Singh instead of 1/3rd and further multiplier of 16 should have been applied instead of 15 while

calculating the compensation. The appellants also contended that the learned tribunal has not considered the future prospects while considering the

amount of compensation. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.,

(supra). The Apex Court in the case aforesaid held as under:-

“(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh 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 note of the decision inReshma 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 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 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 or on afixed 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, the deductionfor personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to

32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinabefore.

(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated inthe Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.

(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis forapplying 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€​

In view of the aforesaid ratio, I have considered the facts and circumstances of the present case.

PW-1 Smt. Umrav Kanwar in her statement stated about agriculture income as well as the income of kirana shop. It was stated that deceased Hari

Singh was having income of Rs.50,000/- from agriculture, but no such evidence has been placed from which it can be inferred that how much income

deceased Hari Singh was earning from agriculture operation. No such document is placed on record from which it can be inferred that he is

possessing 20 bighas of land. So far as income from kirana shop is concerned, no such documentary evidence has been placed on record from which

exactly it can be find out how much income is derived from kirana shop, but it can be presumed that he must be earning at least Rs.5000/- per month

from agriculture operation and Rs.2000/- per month from kirana shop, i.e. Rs.7000/- per month. He is having five dependents, i.e. wife, two sons and

two daughters. In view of this, ¼th income should be deducted for the personal expenses of deceased Hari Singh. Remaining ¾th income should

be taken as dependency which income is treated to be loss of income for the dependents, which comes to Rs.5,250/- per month. So far as future

income is concerned, the deceased was self-employed, therefore, I deem it appropriate to add 40% of the income as future prospectus. Thus, the

monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,250 + 40% of Rs.7000/- = Rs.8,050/-. Looking to the age of deceased as 40 years, the multiplier of 15

is reasonably to be applied.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, reasonable figures on conventional heads viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral

expenses should be Rs.15,000/-,

Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively.

Accordingly, the appellants-claimants are held entitled for the following compensation:-

Loss of Income = Rs.8,050X12X15 = Rs.14,49,000/-

Loss of estate = Rs.   15,000/-

Loss of consortium = Rs.   40,000/-

Funeral expenses = Rs.   15,000/-

Total compensation = Rs.15,19,000/-

In the result, this miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the judgment and award dated 18.3.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First),

Jodhpur in Motor Accident Claim No.117/1996 be modified accordingly in terms of the observations made above. The appellants are entitled to

receive the amount of compensation as modified from the respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. The appellants are entitled to receive interest @

7% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of presentation of the appeal till payment is made.