Court No. - 58
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 211 of 2016 Appellant :- Smt. Pushpa Devi And Another Respondent :- Ravindra Singh Rawal And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vinod Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- Archana Singh
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. This instant appeal has been filed by claimant-appellants (in sort claimants) against the award and judgment dated 17.10.2015/4.11.2015 passed by Motor Accidental Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Aligarh ( in short Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim No. 440 of 2014, Smt. Pushpa Devi and another Vs. Ravindra Singh and others, whereby the claim petition filed for compensation of Rs.22,00,000-/- has been awarded for Rs.2,42,200/- along with 7% per annum simple interest from the date of filing of petition till the payment and respondent No.3, National Insurance Company Ltd, has been directed to pay the same to the claimants-appellants.
2. The brief facts, arising out of this appeal, are that on 13.5.2014, deceased Surendra Singh, son of claimant No.1 Pushpa was going with Brijesh Singh to petrol pump, situated at Jattanaree. Meanwhile one Mahaveer his neighbourer, met with him and while they were talking to each other at about 1.00 P.M. on the road side, respondent No.2, the driver of bus bearing registration No.U.P. 81AF-8538 (driver), driving the said bus rash and negligently, dashed the deceased, whereby serious injuries were caused to him and he died on spot. The claim petition filed by the claimants against the respondents No.1 to 3, owner, driver and insurer of the alleged vehicle was allowed by the Tribunal as above.
3. Aggrieved by the said award and order as the compensation was not just and proper sufficient, the claimants have preferred this appeal.
4. Heard Sri Mahesh Sharma, learned counsel for appellant and Ms Archana Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3, National Insurance Company Ltd. No one is present for other respondent Nos. 1 and 2 despite sufficient service of notice.
5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the claimants submits that this appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation and he is pressing this appeal only on the ground of improper application of multiplier as well as for future prospect and for proper compensation of non-conventional loss. Learned counsel further submits that the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is of 13 on the basis of age of the claimants who are the parents of the deceased, whereas, the deceased Surendra Singh was unmarried at the time of accident as held by the Tribunal. Learned counsel has further submits that in view of the settled principle of law, the multiplier, in case of unmarried deceased, will be applied on the age of the deceased and not on the age of his parents. Learned counsel has placed reliance on law laid down by Apex Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mandala Yadagari Goud and others 2019 Law Suit (SC) 1033 equivalent to 2019 AIR (SC) 1825. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased was self-employed person, aged about 20-21 years. The Tribunal has not added any income in view of future prospect and also not properly awarded the compensation in the head of non-conventional loss as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680.
6. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3- National Insurance Company has no objection on the settled point of law regarding the determination of multiplier as well as proper compensation but submitted that compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and proper.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and peruse the record.
8. Law regarding determination of just compensation has now been settled by the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680, wherein, Hon'ble Court while discussing the law laid down in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121; Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422; Rajesh Vs. Rajbeer Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54; Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 421; Munna Lal Jain vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma (2015) 6 SCC 347; UPSRTC vs. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362; National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa (2015) 9 SCC 166 and various case laws relating for determination of just compensation, has settled down the law regarding various topics which are essential for determination of just compensation i.e. (a) deduction towards personal and living expenses to determine multiplicand; (b) selection of multiplier depending upon the age of deceased; (c) basis for applying multiplier as age of deceased; (d) compensation permissible for conventional head for example loss of state, loss of consortium and funeral expenses; (e) addition of income as a future prospect for both whether the deceased was permanent employee or self employed person.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has concluded as follows:-
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
59.1 The two-Judge 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.
59.2 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.
59.3 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 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.
59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed 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.
59.5 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.
59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
59.8 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.
10. Thus it is clear that Hon'ble Supreme Court not only permitted for addition in the determined income / salary of the deceased whether he was self employed or permanent employee, towards future prospect at the different rate according to age of deceased, but also approved the determination of multiplicand, deduction of personal and living expenses, and selection of multiplier as propounded in para 30 to 32 and para 42 of Sarla Verma case (supra).
11. In Sarla Verma (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 30 to 32 and para 42 has held as under:-
30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.
31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father.
32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two- third.
xx xx xx xx 42. 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 M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.
12. In Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court again held that in case of death of bachelor, age of deceased will be taken into consideration for the purpose of applying multiplier.
13. In this case, as per the claim petition, deceased was aged about 20 years old, but the Tribunal has held his age as 22 years. He was bachelor and self employed person at the time of occurrence. Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 13 on the basis of age of parents of the deceased and only Rs.8,000/- has been awarded in the head of non-pecuniary loss in addition to pecuniary loss which are against the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). In Kishan Devi and others Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd and other,2019 ACJ 1366(SC) three Judges Bench, the Hon'ble Apex Court relying on law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) has held that Rs.70,000/- will also be provided for loss to estate, loss of love and affection and for funeral expenses in case where the deceased was bachelor.
14. In this case, no reliable evidence regarding the income of deceased has been filed by the claimants before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has determined the notional income of deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. Learned Tribunal has also awarded the 7% interest on the awarded compensation. Learned counsel for the claimants has not pointed out any illegality either on the annual income of the deceased or rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal.
15. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), Sarla Verma (supra), Kishan Devi (Supra) and Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), it is clear that in case where the deceased was bachelor at the time of accident, for the purpose of just compensation, the multiplier will be applied on the basis of age of deceased and 50% of his income will be deducted for his personal and living expenses. In addition to it, 40% of the income determined by the Tribunal will be added as future prospect where deceased self employed and below the age of 40 years; and Rs. 70,000/- will also be added for non-pecuniary loss. In this case, the age of deceased has been held by the Tribunal as 22 years and according to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, the multiplier of 18 will be applied. Thus the determination of compensation is as follows:-
16. In view of the above, the claimants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs. 5,83,600/- instead of Rs. 2,42,000/-.
17. So far as the rate of annual interest provided by the Tribunal and the provision for determination of share of compensation by the Tribunal is concerned, it requires no interference.
18. So far as the apportionment of the aforesaid enhancement amount of compensation is concerned, it will be distributed in same proportion as directed by the Trubunal, protecting the interest of minor and wife of deceased.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award and order is modified to the extent discussed as above.
20. Respondent 3 i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount before Tribunal within two month, amount already deposited, if any, shall be adjusted in the aforesaid amount.
21. Office is directed to send the copy of this judgement forthwith to the Tribunal concerned for information and compliance.
Order Date:-26.9.2019 G.S