Smt. Urmila Rishi and Another vs Shri Joginder Singh and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. Smt. Urmila Rishi and Sh. Sudesh Rishi, the claimants are parents of Ashu Rishi, who died on account of injuries suffered by him in a roadside accident that took place on 7.10.2010. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 4.2.2012 has allowed the claim petition and has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,42,000/- as compensation. Since the point involved in the appeal is addition to the income of the deceased in the name of future prospects, the facts are not required to be noticed in detail. Ashu Rishi has been a bachelor who was 25 years old and was pursuing B.Sc. Multimedia in final year from Sikkim Manipal University. He was working as a web-developer with H Degree, Web Division, Chandigarh. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- was spent on his last rites. A sum of Rs. 30.00 lakhs is claimed as compensation.

The respondents have resisted the claim petition. They have denied the averments of the claimants regarding the age, income and qualification of the deceased as also the amount sought as compensation.

After the due trial, learned Tribunal has held that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 4,42,000/- as compensation on the death of Ashu Rishi which shall be payable to them by the respondents with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization thereof.

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the income of the deceased is taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 8,000/- per month. According to him, the deceased was 25 years of age and he was pursuing the course in multimedia and was bound to rise. According to him, the income of the deceased for assessment of compensation should have been the amount he was getting at the time of his death to which 50% thereof should have been added in the name of future prospects. According to him, in this way, the income of the deceased would have come to Rs. 12,000/- per month and the compensation should have been assessed taking Rs. 12,000/- per month as income of the deceased.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, has submitted that the deceased had been in a private job and his job cannot be said to be permanent. According to him, the claimants are, therefore, not entitled to assessment of compensation by adding anything to the actual income of the deceased.

Nothing has come on the record to show as to whether the job of Ansu Rishi was permanent or temporary. However, after the decision in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, he distinction between permanent job and temporary job has been done away with. Now, income of every person, be he in a permanent job or a temporary job or self employed or working on fixed wages, is to be worked out by adding suitable amount in the name of future prospects keeping in view the age of the victim. Here, the deceased is proved to be having Rs. 8,000/- per month as income. Looking to his age, which is 25 years, the income requires an addition of 50% in the name of future prospects. Therefore, the income of the deceased for calculation of compensation comes to Rs. 12,000/- per month. Since the claimants are the parents, their dependency would be 50% of the same and would come to Rs. 6,000/- per month. Multiplied with 12, the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 72,000/-. The multiplier adopted in this case by the Tribunal, which to me appears to be appropriate, is 9. Multiplying the annual dependency with 9, I find a sum of Rs. 6,48,000/- as the loss suffered by the claimants in the death of Ashu Rishi. To it, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is added in the name of loss of estate and expenses on last rites and a sum of Rs. 6,58,000/- is found to be the compensation payable to the claimants-appellants. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 4,42,000/- to Rs. 6,58,000/- which shall be payable to the appellants by the respondents with interest and in the manner as allowed by learned Tribunal in the impugned award.