1 The appellants, original claimants, have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement, against the judgment and award dated 31st August, 2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Court No.21, Ahmedabad, in M.A.C. Petition No.146 of 2000, whereby, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,35,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization and proportionate costs against the opponent.
2. The claimants filed the claim petition to get compensation of Rs.4,68,000/- for the unfortunate death of deceased, Kantilal Purushotamdas Chauhan, in a vehicular accident on 11.03.2000. It is the case of the claimants that deceased, Kantilal, was running a pan shop known as "Lalaji Bidi" at Delhi Chakla area. On 11.03.2000, Kantilal was going on his bicycle for Delhi Chakla by opposite side of his residence located in Nandigram Society and was proceeding just by the side of the footpath slowly, at that time the opponent No.1 drove the bus in full speed, in most reckless and negligent manner, and in the process, the middle portion of the offending bus dashed with the bicycle and as a result, he fell on the road, and the left side wheel of it ran over the deceased, causing death of Kantilal Purushotamdas Chauhan.
3. The opponents resisted the claim petition by filing the written submissions.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the future prospective rise in the income of the deceased. In support of his submission, learned advocate for the appellants have placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of [i] Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2012 ACJ 1428 and [ii] Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in [2009] 6 SCC 121.
5. Learned advocate for the Insurance Company submits that in absence of any merit in the present appeal, no interference is called for by this Court in the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal.
6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi [supra], I am inclined to accept the submission of the learned advocate of the appellants that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the future prospective rise in the income of the deceased. In the case of Santosh Devi [supra], the Apex Court in paras 14 and 15 observed as under:
"14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma's case that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. In our view, it will be naïve to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is selfemployed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac. Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is selfemployed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he / she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation.
15. It is also not possible to approve the view taken by the Tribunal which has been reiterated by the High Court albeit without assigning reasons that the deceased would have spent 1/3rd of his total earning, i.e., Rs. 500/-, towards personal expenses. It seems that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge of the High Court were totally oblivious of the hard realities of the life. It will be impossible for a person whose monthly income is Rs.1,500/- to spend 1/3rd on himself leaving 2/3rd for the family consisting of five persons. Ordinarily, such a person would, at best, spend 1/10th of his income on himself or use that amount as personal expenses and leave the rest for his family".
7. In view of the above, the award of compensation deserves to be modified and enhanced as under:
[i] Taking into consideration the monthly income of the deceased of Rs.1500/-, adding 30% increase towards prospective income, the monthly income of the deceased would come at Rs.1950/-. In view of the decision of Santosh Devi [supra]. One tenth deduction of Rs.195/- towards personal expenses of the deceased is made; [Rs.1950 minus Rs.195 = Rs.1755/- p.m]. Thus, the annual dependency [Rs.1755 x 12] available to the claimants out of the income of the deceased is Rs.21,060/-. Applying multiplier of 13, the loss of dependency is determined to [Rs.21,060/- x 13] Rs.2,73,780/-.
[ii] The Tribunal has awarded in all Rs.15,000/- towards Loss of Consortium + Loss of Estate. However, according to the law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Devi [supra], Rs.10,000/- towards Consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards Loss of Estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral and after death expenses, are awarded.
[iii] Thus, the total amount of Rs.2,98,780/- should be the just and proper compensation payable to the appellants. The appellants were awarded Rs.1,35,000/- as compensation with 9% interest and proportionate cost.
8. Hence, additional amount of compensation of Rs.1,63,780/- [Rs.2,98,780 minus Rs.1,35,000] is awarded to the appellants-claimants with interest @7% [seven percent] p.a. and proportionate cost from the date of claim petition till realization.
The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. Award to be drawn accordingly.
[Anant S. Dave, J.] *pvv Top