1. Heard Sri Anubhav Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Jay Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal has been filed by the insurance company being aggrieved of award dated 18.02.2006 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Kanpur Dehat in M.A.C.P. No. 351 of 2003 on a singular ground that though tribunal accepted income of the deceased to be Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand rupees) per annum, but no deduction has been made towards personal expenses which in the light of the law laid down in case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another as reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, should have been 1/4th.
3. It is also submitted that multiplier of 17 will be applicable in place of multiplier of 18, as the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 28 years.
4. Sri J.P. Singh, in his turn, submits that the mandate of this court is to do complete justice between the parties and though no cross objection/appeal has been filed by the claimants, who are illiterate, but looking to the fact that accident took place on 22.04.2003, computation of income at Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand rupees) per annum is on the lower side. He also submits that this Court in the interest of justice and with a view to offord equitable compensation, is required to enhance the amount under the head of non-pecuniary compensation from Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand rupees) to Rs. 70,000/- (seventy thousand rupees) in the light of the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680.
5. In Nagappa vs. Gurdayal and Others as reported in AIR (2003) Supreme Court 674, the Apex Court has held that in order to do complete justice, award can be modified even when there is no cross appeal.
6. As accident took place on 22.04.2003, therefore, taking minimum wages for the relevant period @ Rs. 1,500/- (one thousand five hundred rupees) per month or Rs. 18,000/- (eighteen thousand rupees) per annum, 1/4th is to be deducted, then annual dependency will come out to Rs. 13,500/- (thirteen thousand five hundred rupees) per annum. Over and above which, claimants are entitled to an addition of 40% towards future prospects, taking total annual dependency to Rs. 18,900/- (eighteen thousand nine hundred rupees) per annum. When multiplier of 17 is applied as is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, then total pecuniary compensation will come out to Rs. 3,21,300/- (three lakhs twenty one thousand three hundred rupees). Over and above which claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 70,000/- (seventy thousand rupees) under the head of non-pecuniary compensation taking total compensation to Rs. 3,91,300/- (three lakhs ninety one thousand three hundred rupees) in place of Rs. 2,72,000/- (two lakhs seventy two thousand rupees) awarded by learned claims tribunal. Thus, there will be an enhancement of Rs. 1,19,300/- (one lakh nineteen thousand three hundred rupees) to which claimants will be entitled. Other terms and condition of the award like interest and ratio of appropriation amongst the claimants shall remained intact.
7. Therefore, appeal is allowed in part and award is modified accordingly.
Order Date :- 18.1.2021 Vikram/-