Court No. - 27
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 439 of 2009 Appellant :- Sher Ali And Another Respondent :- Smt. Madhvi Singh Chandel And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jai Raj Singh Tomar,Kavita Tomar,Vidya Kant Shukla
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Vidya Kant Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Vipul Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
The appellants have preferred the present appeal for enhancement of compensation.
Appellants are the parents of one Nausad who died in an accident with Marsal Jeep No. U.P. 78 T 9696 on 08.03.2007. Nausad was employed in the Printing Press and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. In the aforesaid backdrop, the appellants/claimants instituted a claim petition wherein, they prayed for a compensation of Rs. 6,32,000/-.
The Tribunal on the issue of quantification of compensation disbelieved the evidence led by the appellants in respect of the income of the deceased. The Tribunal held the income of deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum, and thereafter deducted 1/3 from the said amount towards personal expanses of the deceased and applied the multiplier of 1 for computing compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,92,000/- towards the loss of income. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus in total, the Tribunal awarded of Rs. 1,94,000/- along with 6% interest as compensation to the appellants/claimants.
Challenging the quantification of compensation, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has submitted that the appellants have filed salary certificate of the deceased which was duly proved by the proprietor of the Printing Press, Siddhartha Mishra. He further submitted that the salary register of the Printing Press was also filed to establish that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. The attendance register as well as salary register was proved by PW-3. In absence of any evidence led by the Insurance Company rebutting the aforesaid documentary evidence, and the testimony of PW-3, the Tribunal has erred in holding the income of the deceased to be Rs. 5,000/- per month.
He further contends that considering the age of the deceased, the appellants are entitled to 40% towards future prospects, and further the Tribunal should have applied the multiplier corresponding to the age of deceased i.e. 18 instead of 1 for computing the compensation. He further contends that Tribunal has awarded very meagre amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, and submits that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 15,000/- each towards funeral expanses and towards loss of estate. Lastly, he contends that the interest of 6% awarded by the Tribunal is also inadequate.
Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal in disbelieving the documentary evidence filed by the claimants has given cogent reasons, and thus the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,000/- per month. He submits that the claimants are parents of the deceased, and therefore, Tribunal should have deducted 1/2 towards personal expenses of the deceased. He further submits that in the facts of the present, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and not liable to be enhanced.
I have heard, the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
The appellants have filed salary certificate of the deceased and the register attendance as well as salary register of Printing Press to establish that the deceased was employed with the Printing Press and was getting salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month. These documents were duly proved by the appellants by producing PW-3 Siddharthan Mishra, the Properiter of the printing press. The aforesaid documentary evidence as well as the testimony of PW-3 has not been disputed or rebutted by the Insurance Company by leading any evidence.
Thus, in the opinion of the Court reasoning assumed by the Tribunal that since the Proprietor has not filed the balance sheet of the printing press, therefore, the aforesaid documents are not worthy reliance is not a cogent ground for rejecting the evidence of the appellants in respect of the income of the deceased.
Thus, in the opinion of the Court, the Tribunal has acted illegality in holding the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,000/- per month instead of Rs. 5,000/-. Accordingly, this Court holds that the compensation shall be computed treating the income of the deceased to be Rs. 5,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 60,000/- per annum.
The submissions of learned counsel for the appellants in respect of future prospect has also merit, and accordingly, considerting the age of deceased, appellants are entitled to 40% towards future prospect on the income of the deceased.
It is settled in law that the compensation shall be computed by applying the multiplier corresponding to the age of the deceased and not of parents even in cases where the deceased is bachelor. Thus, it is provided that the compensation shall be computed by applying the multiplier of 18 corresponding to the age of deceased.
So far as, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents towards wrong deduction of personal expanses of the deceased is concerned, the said contention is supported by the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others 2009 (6) SCC 121 and accordingly, this Court provides that the compensation shall be computed by deducting half towards personal expenses of deceased instead of 1/3. This Court also finds that the award of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses is also inadequate and accordingly, this Court awards Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expanses in place of 2,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate.
The interest of 6% awarded by the Tribunal is also on lower side and accordingly, it is provided that enhance amount of compensation shall carry 7% interest from the date of institution of claim petition.
The appeal is allowed, and the order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation within a period of two months from today. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 M. ARIF