Court No. - 4
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 112 of 2013 Appellant :- Smt. Lalita Devi And Another Respondent :- Vijai Kumar Gorover And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vashistha Tiwari
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J. Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V.C. Dixit, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
This first appeal from order has been filed by the appellants who are parents of the deceased Dhananjay Kumar Gupta who died in an accident on 11.10.2006 at about 8 a.m. which was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck bearing registration No. UP78T9553 which collided with the deceased's vehicle bearing registration No. UP32AZ0086 which was being driven by him at that time.
The Tribunal after holding the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/ per month and applying the multiplier of 15 having regard to the age of the claimants/appellants, awarded a sum of Rs.3,02,000/ as compensation against both the opposite parties along with interest @ 6 % and directed the insurance company to satisfy the award.
Learned counsel for the appellants has claimed enhancement of compensation on the following grounds:
(i) The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospect;
(ii) Incorrect multiplier has been applied by the Tribunal while determining loss of dependency by considering the age of the parents whereas the appropriate multiplier should have been applied by having regard to the age of the deceased;
(iii) The amount awarded under the conventional heads i.e. funeral expense and loss of estate is also too meager.
In support of his aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 2014 (4) T.A.C. 673 (S.C.).
(iv) The Tribunal ought to have awarded interest on the awarded amount of compensation at the rate of 7% per annum and not as 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition.
Per contra, Sri V.C. Dixit made a feeble attempt to justify the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned judgment and award as well as other material brought on record, we find that there is force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants.
The constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in paragraph 61 of the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has held as under:
“61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
(i) The twoJudge 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 in Reshma 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 48 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 selfemployed or on a fixed 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 deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 49
(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.
Thus, keeping in view the principles stated by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), we find that while determining the notional income of the deceased, 40% of his notional income should be added to his notional income towards future prospect.
The multiplier to be applied in this case has to be with regard to the age of the deceased. The deceased admittedly at the time of his death was aged about 21 years and keeping in view the table for selection of multiplier provided in the case of 'Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr' which has been approved by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the correct multiplier to be applied in this case is 18. In paragraph 21 of 'Sarla Verma' (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M17 for 26 to 30 years, M16 for 31 to 35 years, M15 for 36 to 40 years, M14 for 41 to 45 years, and M13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M11 for 51 to 55 years, M9 for 56 to 60 years, M7 for 61 to 65 years and M5 for 66 to 70 years.
The amounts awarded under the conventional heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate are also liable to be enhanced as per the principles stated by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
The Tribunal ought to have awarded interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 7% in accordance with Rule 220 (A) (6) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 as amended in the year 2011. Hence, the claimants/appellants are entitled to interest at the rate of 7% form the date of filing of the claim petition.
We accordingly redetermine the compensation as hereunder:
In view of the above, we allow the instant first appeal from order by increasing the compensation from Rs.3,02,000/ to Rs.4,83,600/. The increased amount shall carry the interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal till the date of payment.
We allow the appeal to the extent referred to hereinabove. The respondents are directed to ensure the payment as indicated above within a period of one month to the appellants on 7% simple interest from the date of filing of claim petition before the Tribunal.
Order Date :- 29.03.2018 Madhurima