(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI) 1. The appellants-original claimants are in appeal against the judgment and award, dated 29.02.2000, of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Main), Surendranagar, rendered in M.A.C.P. No.205 of 1995, whereby the tribunal awarded Rs.1,86,600/- to be recovered from respondent Nos. 1 to 3, herein, together with running interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.
2. Brief facts of the case, as emerging from the record are as under:
The claimants are the heirs of the deceased Parulben, who succumbed to the injuries sustained by her in an accident, which took place on 20.09.1994. Appellant No.1 is the husband of the deceased Parulben and appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are her children. It is alleged in the claim petition that opponent No.1 had driven the luxury bus in a rash and negligent manner, as a result thereof the alleged accident took place, wherein the deceased Parulben sustained severe injuries and expired. As stated in the claim petition, the deceased Parulben was a young, talented lady, aged about 39 years and she was possessing diploma in Textile. At the relevant point of time, the deceased Parulben was earning Rs.1,25,000/- per annum. On the basis of the same, the appellants claimed a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- in the claim petition.
3. In support of the claim petition, appellant No.1 was examined at Exhibit-25 and as per his deposition, the deceased Parulben was a literate lady. She was working with one Snoopy Play House and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. She was also running a beauty parlor and also used to give tuitions to the children. He has, further, stated that his wife was earning Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- from beauty parlour. Of course, in cross examination, he submitted that the deceased Parulben had not undergone any course of beauty parlour, but, he has stated that his wife was running beauty parlour at home. He specifically denied the suggestion that the deceased Parulben was only a house wife. He also produced income tax return of the deceased Parulben, the same were produced at Exhibits-28 and 29. In support of the income of the deceased Parulben from salary, a certificate showing her salary at Rs.24,000/- per annum was also produced on record.
4. On the basis of the material as stated above, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased Parulben at Rs.1200/- per month and after deducting 1/3 amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased, arrived at the figure of Rs.800/- to be the monthly loss of dependency of the appellants. After arriving at the figure towards monthly loss of dependency, the tribunal, then, proceeded to decide the multiplier. Considering the age of the deceased Parulben I.e. 39 years, the tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 years and then arrived at the figure of Rs.1,53,600/-. The tribunal, besides the aforesaid amount, awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium and loss of estate and Rs.3,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. Accordingly, the tribunal arrived at the figure of Rs.1,83,600/- towards compensation, to be paid by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The said amount has been ordered to be paid along with running interest at the rate of 12 per cent.
5. The learned Advocate, Mr. Devang Nanavati, for the appellants has assailed the judgment and award passed by the tribunal on various counts and has submitted that the assessment of the income of the deceased Parulben done by the tribunal at Rs.800/- per month is very low. Learned Advocate for the appellant has strongly urged that there was ample evidence available on record to establish that the deceased Parulben was earning different incomes from three different sources, which would come around Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. He, further, submitted that the deceased Parulben was a literate lady, holding a diploma in Textile and was also actively involved in providing tuitions to the children. She was also serving as teacher with one Snoopy Play School and was also doing the business of the beauty parlour at her home. Learned Advocate has urged that, though, the income tax returns are filed after the date of accident, a perusal of the same would reveal the income of the deceased Parulben prior to hear death. The learned Advocate has taken us through the copies of the income tax returns produced at Exhibits-28 and 29 and pointed out that the income tax return at Exhibit-28 was for the assessment year 1994-95, which shows the income of the deceased Parulben for the year 1993-94. He has made strenuous efforts to point out that the tribunal ought to have appreciated that the deceased was actively involved in various activities, and therefore, she definitely was earning the income disclosed in the income tax returns. Hence, there was no reason to disbelieve the income of the deceased only because the income tax returns were filed after the death of the deceased. Over and above the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the learned Advocate has also pointed out that there is no reason to disbelieve the certificate of salary, produced on record. He has stated that it may be that there was nobody examined in support of such salary certificate, but, from the said salary certificate one thing can be arrived at that the deceased Parulben was not sitting home as an idle house wife. He, therefore, pointed out that the assessment of the income of the deceased at Rs.800/- per month by the tribunal is grossly very low, and therefore, such a finding recorded by the tribunal cannot be sustained.
6. Learned Counsel, further, submitted that, even if, it is assumed that the deceased Parulben was just a house wife, even then, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in “ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL AND ANOTHER VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.”, reported in 2010 (9) SCC 218, for arriving at monthly income of a house wife in the matter of accident claim, the amount arrived at by the tribunal as income of the deceased is grossly inadequate and not in consonance with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. He has urged that as per the Supreme Court ruling, even income of a house wife is required to be believed around Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per annum, because a house wife is always involved in multifarious activities. He submitted that a house wife has to discharge many a kind of duties towards her husband, children and other family members, while carrying out day to day household work. He, therefore, relying upon the above said ruling of the Apex Court, urged that the tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased Parulben, at least, at Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per annum, as held by the Apex Court.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Paragraph Nos. 29 to 34 of the above said judgment, and more particularly, Paragraph-28, which is reproduced hereunder:
“In Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (supra), this Court considered the various issues raised in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners including the one relating to payment of compensation to the victims of fire accident which occurred on 3.3.1989 resulting in the death of 60 persons and injuries to 113. By an interim order dated 15.12.1993, this Court requested former Chief Justice of India, Shri Justice Y.V. Chandrachud to look into various issues including the amount of compensation payable to the victims.
Although, the petitioners filed objection to the report submitted by Shri Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, the Court overruled the same and accepted the report. On the issue of payment of compensation to housewife, the Court observed:
"10. So far as the deceased housewives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the housewives were not earning any income, attempt has been made to determine the compensation on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has been arrived at Rs.12,000 per annum in cases of some and Rs.10,000 for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It is true that the claimants, who ought to have given data for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the data for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such data and taking into consideration the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs.3000 per month and Rs.36,000 per annum. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 to 59 and as such who were active in life. The compensation awarded, therefore, should be recalculated, taking the value of services rendered per annum to be Rs.36,000 and thereafter, applying the multiplier, as has been applied already, and so far as the conventional amount is concerned, the same should be Rs.50,000 instead of Rs.25,000 given under the Report. So far as the elderly ladies are concerned, in the age group of 62 to 72, the value of services rendered has been taken at Rs.10,000 per annum and the multiplier applied is eight. Though, the multiplier applied is correct, but the values of services rendered at Rs.10,000 per annum, cannot be held to be just and, we, therefore, enhance the same to Rs.20,000 per annum. In their case, therefore, the total amount of compensation should be redetermined, taking the value of services rendered at Rs.20,000 per annum and then after applying the multiplier, as already applied and thereafter, adding Rs.50,000 towards the conventional figure."
(emphasis supplied)”
8. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that in case of motor vehicle accidents for assessing income of a non-earning member I.e. mother/house wife, which is generally arrived at Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per annum, appears to be very low and even if specific data for determining the compensation are provided then also looking to the multifarious activities in which a house wife is generally involved for managing household affairs, their income should be assessed at least at Rs.36,000/- per annum. Such figures should be taken in case of house- wives between the age group of 34 to 50 years and the compensation should be awarded on the basis of such figures by applying a suitable multiplier.
9. Mr. Shalin N. Mehta, learned Advocate for respondent No.3, opposed the appeal and submitted that, since the claimants failed to adduce any cogent evidence, as regards income of the deceased Parulben, the tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error in arriving at the figure of Rs.800/- to be the income of the deceased Parulben. He, further, contended that, except, a bare certificate of salary as also the income tax returns, which were filed after the date of the alleged accident, there is no other evidence of income, as sought to be canvassed by the appellants. Mr. Mehta, vehemently contended that the income tax returns were filed after the date of the accident, and therefore, such income tax returns cannot be taken into consideration for arriving at the loss of dependency sustained by the appellants. He has, therefore, submitted that the tribunal has rightly ignored the income tax returns produced by the appellants. Ultimately, Mr. Mehta, submitted that the tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.800/- per month and no interference is called for at the hands of this Court.
10. Having heard learned Advocates and having perused the record of the case, we find that the husband of the deceased, as discussed above, has deposed, as regards the income of the deceased Parulben that she was involved in various gainful activities. He has stated that the deceased was working in a play group school and was also giving tuitions. Though, there are no cogent evidence, but, one thing cannot be lost sight of that immediately after the death of the deceased, income tax returns were filed. First income tax return(Exhibit-28) was for the assessment year 1994-95, for the income for the year 1993-94, which is stated to be Rs.30,000/- per year. One more thing also requires to be taken into consideration that the deceased was holding a diploma in Textile. In other words, she was an educated lady and cannot be stated to be simply a house wife. Admittedly, income tax returns were filed after the death of the deceased, and therefore, it appears that the tribunal did not place any reliance on the same. However, taking into consideration all the above aspects as also the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above cited judgment and taking into account over all facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that if the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.4,000/- per month, then, the same would be just and reasonable. The tribunal has applied the multiplier 16, which, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 39 years, appears to be just and proper. Thus, annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.48,000/- and after deducting 1/3 from the same, the annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.32,000/-. Accordingly, the future loss of dependency would come to Rs.(32000 X 16)=Rs.5,12,000/-.
11. The tribunal has jointly awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium and loss to estate, which appears to be on lower side. We are, therefore, of the opinion that if Rs.25,000/- are awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium, then, the same would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the total figure towards loss of consortium and loss to estate would come to Rs.45,000/-. The tribunal has awarded Rs.3,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses, which appears to be just and reasonable. Thus, in our view the total amount of compensation would come to Rs.(5,12,000 + 45,000 + 3,000)=Rs.5,60,000/-. Since, the tribunal has already granted an amount of Rs.1,86,600/- towards compensation, the appellants shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.(5,60,000 – 1,86,600)=3,73,400/-.
12. The tribunal has awarded 12 per cent interest on the original amount of compensation. We, however, award interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on additional amount of compensation awarded by us.
13. In the result, the appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED. The appellant-original claimants shall be entitled to recover an additional amount of Rs.3,73,400/- together along with interest at the rate of NINE per cent per annum from the date of application, till its realization from the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 jointly or severally.
14. The entire additional amount towards compensation shall be deposited before the concerned tribunal within a period of FOUR WEEKS, from today. On depositing of such amount, the tribunal shall pass the necessary orders for its DISBURSEMENT in favour of the appellants-original claimants. The judgment and award, dated 29.02.2000, impugned in this appeal stands MODIFIED to the aforesaid extent.
15. R & P be sent back to the concerned tribunal, forthwith. No order as to costs.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.)
(C.L. SONI,J.)
Umesh/