AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (afterwards referred to as 'the Act of 1988') for enhancement of compensation has been filed by the claimants of |the deceased - Nena Ram against the award dated 31.05.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali (afterwards referred as 'Tribunal') in MAC Case No.515/2001, whereby, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,95,500/- as compensation.
Brief facts of the case are that on 27.11.2000 deceased Nena Ram was riding motor cycle alongwith his wife from his residence to Jodhpur; near Kankani a Bus bearing registration No. RJ04-P- 0231, which was being driven rashly & negligently by its driver, collided with them in which Nena Ram & his wife sustained injuries; during the treatment, on account of injuries sustained in the accident, Nena Ram died; an FIR No. 192/2000 was registered at Police Station, Luni.
A claim petition under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 was filed before the learned Tribunal by the wife, daughter, two sons and mother of the deceased claiming Rs. 37,11,000/- as compensation.
Learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,95,500/- as compensation in the following manner:-
Loss of income Rs. 3,60,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/-
Loss of consortium to wife & love Rs. 30,000/-
& affection to other claimants
Loss of motor cycle Rs. 500/-
Total Rs. 3,95,500/-
However, it was made clear that after adjustment of the amount already deposited, the rest of the amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application i.e. 16.02.2001.
Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, theclaimants preferred the instant appeal.
It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was duly authorized LIC agent and he was earning Rs. 36,000/- per annum from commission; in addition to this he was running a utensils shop named "Kailash Steel Centre", which was owned by the deceased himself; he used to earn Rs. 6,000/- per month from the shop; the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the income being earned by the deceased from running the utensils shop.
It was submitted that deceased was aged 32 years at the time of accident and as per the principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier of 16 prescribed for the age group of 31-35 should be applied for determining the loss of dependency, whereas, learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 15; no amount has been awarded in the head of future prospects; 1/3 amount has been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, whereas, as per the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) only 1/4 amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses.
It was submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 35,000/- in the conventional head i.e. Rs. 30,000/- for loss of consortium & Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. : (2017) 16 SCC 680 it should be enhanced to Rs. 70,000/-.
On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent - Corporation contended that the appellants failed to prove any income of the deceased being derived by running the shop; there is no justification for enhancement of compensation in the head of loss of income; the appellants did not produce any documentary evidence in this regard; the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has laid down the principles, in so far as relevant, read as under:-
While determining the income, an addition of 40% of the established income should be made where the deceased is below the age of 40 years and is self employed.
Regarding the selection of multiplier and deduction for personal and living expenses, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) have been approved.
Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses have been fixed as Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively to be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
In the present case, as per memo of appeal deceased at the relevant time was duly authorized LIC agent and was receiving Rs. 36,000/- per annum as commission from LIC; learned Tribunal has taken Rs. 36,000/- per annum as income being derived from commission, therefore, there is no justification in enhancing the income of the deceased on this count.
So far as the income from utensils shop named "Kailash Steel Centre" is concerned, learned Tribunal in its judgment has categorically come to the conclusion that claimants had failed to produce any documentary evidence; there is no material on record to prove that deceased was owning utensils shop and earning Rs. 6,000/- per month from that shop. Above finding recorded by the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted with. There is no material on record to infer that deceased was earning more than Rs. 36,000/- per annum as assessed by the Tribunal.
With regard to future prospects no amount has been awarded in this head. Since the deceased was self employed and below the age of 40 years, 40% of the income should be added to the annual income of the deceased while calculating the loss of income to the claimants.
On perusal of the record, it is revealed that there are total five claimants (claimant No.1 is wife, claimant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are minor children and claimant No. 5 is old mother), who were dependent on the deceased; learned Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd income of the deceased, whereas, as per the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), which were approved by Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), only 1/4th amount should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased in case number of dependents are 4 to 6.
In view of the material available on record and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants-claimants are entitled to get compensation in the following terms:-
Monthly income Rs. 3000/-
Annual income Rs. 3000x12 = Rs. 36,000/- per annum
Add 40% towards future Rs. 36000x40/100 = Rs. 14,400/-
prospects Rs. 36000+14400 = Rs. 50,400/-
Less 1/4th towards personal Rs. 50,400/4 = Rs. 12,600/-
expenses Rs. 50,400-12,600 = Rs. 37,800/-
Net annual loss Rs. 37,800/-
Loss of dependency Rs. 37,800x16 = Rs. 6,04,800/-
Add general expenses Rs. 70,000/-
Total compensation Rs. 6,04,800+70,000 = Rs. 6,74,800/-
awardable
Less amount awarded by the Rs. 6,74,800-3,95,500 = Rs. 2,79,300/-
Tribunal
Enhanced amount of Rs. 2,79,300/-
compensation
In view of the above, the appellants-claimants would be entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 2,79,300/-, which shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation i.e 16.02.2001.
Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The award dated 31.05.2002 is modified to the extent that claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 6,74,800/- instead of Rs. 3,95,500/- as awarded by the Tribunal. On the enhanced amount of compensation, the appellants-claimants would be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of actual payment. The enhanced compensation shall be deposited in the saving bank account of wife and mother of the deceased through learned Tribunal by the Corporation within a period of one month from the date of this judgment.
The amount shall be disbursed between the wife and mother of the deceased in the ratio of 65:35.