Court No. - 26
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3310 of 2007
Appellant :- Manik Lal Verma & Another Respondent :- Ram Asrey Shukla & Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- S.K. Mehrotra,Sushil Kumar Mehrotra
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant/appellants for enhancement of compensation.
Claimants had instituted the claim petition claiming compensation along with interest for the death of their son Sameer @ Sunny, who suffered injuries in an accident on 31.12.2005 with Truck No CG-04-G-9283 and later on succumbed to his injuries on 01.01.2006.
Claimants have pleaded in the claim petition that Sameer @ Sunny was a student of Class- XII and was also helping his father in a running business of ornament and was earning Rs.6000/- per month.
The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 1500/- per month and thereafter calculated the compensation for the loss of dependency. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 90,000/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 2500/- for funeral expenses. Thus in total sum of Rs. 1,17,500/- along with 6% interest was awarded by the Tribunal.
Challenging the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, learned counsel for the appellants Sri Ram Singh has submitted that the income of Rs.1500/- per month assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side inasmuch as claimants have led the evidence to establish that deceased was helping his father in the business and was also a student of Class-XII. He submits that deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. He further submits that even if there was no documentary evidence on record in respect of the income of the deceased, the Tribunal should have taken Rs.3,000/- as notional income for the purpose of computation of compensation. In this regard, he has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar and Another, 2008 AICC 915 (SC). He further submits that it is a settled law that claimants are also entitled 40% for future prospect in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 (16) SCC 680. Relying upon the said judgement, he further submits that the claimants are also entitled Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
Further submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that multiplier applied by the Tribunal corresponding the age of the parents is wrong inasmuch as the Apex Court has held in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), that the multiplier corresponding to the age of the deceased should be applied for computing the compensation and thus, according to him, the compensation should be calculated by applying multiplier of 18 instead of 15.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no proof of income of the deceased and hence, Tribunal was justified in holding the income of the deceased to be Rs. 1500/- per month.
He further submits that deceased was a bachelor and, therefore, the Tribunal should have deducted half of the amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others 2009 (6) SCC 121. He further submits that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper in the facts of the present case and does not call for interference by this Court.
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
The Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others (Supra) has held with the passage of time, cost of living has increased and consequently, the Apex Court held that Rs.3000/- to be a reasonable income for assessing the compensation. In view of the judgement of Laxmi Devi and Others (Supra), the submission of learned counsel for the appellants has substance that income of the deceased should have been assessed to be Rs.3000/-. Thus, in the opinion of the Court following the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others (Supra), the compensation should be computed treating the income of the deceased to be Rs.3000/- per month.
So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in respect of future prospect and multiplier of 18 to be applied for computing the compensation is concerned, the same is supported by the judgement of Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited (supra), it is held that claimants are entitled for 40% of future prospect on the income of the deceased as the age of the deceased was 20 years and further the compensation should be computed by applying multiplier of 18 instead of 15. Consequently, it is held that the claimants are entitled for 40% future prospect and the compensation should be calculated by applying the multiplier of 18.
So far as the amount towards exemption of personal expenses is concerned, the submission of respondents is supported by the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others (supra), as the deceased was a bachelor and, therefore, it is provided that 50% amount should be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased for computing the compensation.
The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2500 towards funeral expenses and nothing has been awarded towards the loss of estate. Following the judgement of National Insurance Company Limited(supra), claimants are awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses instead of Rs.2500/- and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate besides the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering and Rs.15,000/- for the expenses incurred on the treatment of the deceased.
Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the award of interest of 6% is on lower side.
The Court is of the opinion that in the instant case, it would be just and proper to award 7% interest on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of institution of claim petition.
The appeal is partly allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to cost.
Order Date :- 27.11.2018 Sattyarth