1. Heard Sri Vidhya Dhar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Mukesh Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Balendu Shekhar, learned counsel for respondents No.1, 3 and 4 and Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This is an appeal directed against the award dated 12th December, 2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal")/Additional District Judge, Lucknow.
3. The necessary relevant facts are stated here under to appreciate the case with a view to ascertain whether the appellants are entitled to the relief of enhancement of compensation as prayed in the appeal.
4. Briefly stating, the appellants, namely, Smt. Krishna Rastogi and Sri Manoj Kumar Rastogi (claimants) filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short 'the Act') bearing No.329 of 2006, seeking compensation for the death of Sri Rajendra Prasad Rastogi, husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant No.2 in the road accident caused on 11th June, 2006 involving truck bearing Registration No. UP 78 B 7800 (offending vehicle), which was admittedly insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited (the insurer). Death had taken place on 25th June, 2006. Respondent No.1, Sri Firoz Siddiqui is owner of the offending vehicle. He had filed written statement. In the written statement, respondent No.1 admitted the ownership of the offending vehicle, however, he denied other allegations made in the petition. Respondent No.2, the New India Assurance Company Limited filed separate statement and denied the allegations made in the petition; it was stated that respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the amount claimed in the petition because the alleged vehicle was not insured. Respondent No.4, Sri Putam Singh Verma is driver of the offending vehicle, the separate written statement was filed by him.
5. On the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the Tribunal:-
"1- D;k fnukad 11-6-06 dks le; djhc 7%30 cts ,l0ch0vkbZ0 ,0Vh0,e0 ehuk VªkUliksVZ fLFkr jdkcxat] Fkkuk othjxat] y[kuÅ ds ikl okgu la- VkVk Vªd ;w0ih0 78ch 7800 ds pkyd us rsth o ykijokgh ls pykdj VDdj ekj nh vkSj e`rd Jh jktsUnz jLrksxh dks pkssVsa igqapk;h ftlds dkj.k fnukad 25-6-06 dks ds0th0,e0lh0 Vªkek lsUVj esa e`rd dk fu/ku gks x;k\ 2- D;k nq?kZVuk ds le;] fnukad ij fookfnr okgu la0& VkVk Vªd ;w0ih0 78 ch 7800 ds pkyd ds ikl oS/k o izHkkoh Mªkbfoax ykblsal Fkk vkSj chek ikfylh dh 'krksZa dk mYya?ku djds okgu dk ifjpkyu fd;k tk jgk Fkk\ 3- D;k e`rd }kjk Lo;a ds ;ksxnk;h mis{kkiw.kZ o ykijokgh ds dkj.k nq?kZVuk dk dkj.k jgk gS\ 4- D;k nq?kZVuk ds fnukad o le; ij fookfnr okgu VkVk Vªd ;w0ih0 78ch 7800 chek daiuh ls chfer Fkk\ 5- D;k fookfnr Vªd esa IykbZcqM QSDVjh ls IykbZcqM Hkjdj iqrku flag oekZ pkyd fVEcj dh nqdku fLFkr jdkcxat esa Vªd [kM+k dj pyk x;k Fkk rFkk ykSVdj 50 lkS dne vk;k gksxk fd] Vªd dks HkhM+ ls ?ksjs gq;s ik;k rFkk Vªd Dyhuj mez 14 o"kZ dks HkhM+ us o iqfyl us ?ksj fy;kA fookfnr okgu ls dksbZ Hkh nq?kZVuk pkyd iqrku flag oekZ }kjk ?kfVr ugha dh x;h gS\ 6- ;kphx.k fdlh vuqrks"k dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\"
6. In support of their claims, the appellants examined Smt. Krishna Rastogi as PW-1 and Sri Gaya Prasad as PW-2. The respondents examined Sri Firoz Siddiqui as DW-1, who is owner of the vehicle, Sri Putam Singh Verma as DW-2 who is driver of the offending vehicle and Sri Anand Kumar as DW-3.
7. By the impugned award dated 12th December, 2012, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.3,28,180/- (rupees three lacs twenty eight thousand one hundred eighty only) with interest @ 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. The Tribunal decided issues No.1, 3 and 5 in favour of the appellants/claimants and against the respondents. Issue No.2 was also decided in favour of the appellants/claimants and respondent No.1 and against respondent No.2. Issue No.4 was also decided in favour of the claimants and respondent No.1 and against respondent No.2. While deciding issue No.6, the Tribunal referred to the judgment in the case of 'Smt. Laxmi Devi vs. Mohd. Tanwar', 2008 (2) TAC 394 and held the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.3,28,180/- (rupees three lacs twenty eight thousand one hundred eighty only) with interest @ 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
8. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellants/claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. No appeal is, however, stated to have been filed by either of the respondents.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and he is not challenging the same. Thus, there is no dispute or grievance on fixation of monthly income of Rs.3,000/- by the Tribunal from the side of claimants/appellants. Even otherwise, the monthly income of the deceased as taken by the Tribunal is considered to be proper in view of the relevant material and the evidence led during the course of inquiry.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider future prospects of the deceased-Rajendra Prasad Rastogi. He also submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded the compensation as per law laid down by the Apex Court.
11. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that the deceased was self-employed and cannot be placed at par with government employees. Thus, the claimants are not entitled to future prospects.
12. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the material available on record.
13. In the case of 'National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Parnay Sethi and others', 2017 (4) TAC 673 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the principles for grant of compensation. The principles have been summed up as follows:-
"61. (i) 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.
(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 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 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.
(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.
(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."
14. In the present case, the deceased was 45 years of age, income of the deceased has been assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,12,000/- after deducting one third (1/3rd) income for personal expanses by the deceased and applying the multiplier of thirteen. However, future prospects have not been granted.
15. In view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), the appellants are entitled to addition of 25% on account of future prospects. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,000/- minus 1/3rd deduction (for personal expenses) x 12 = Rs.24,000/- x 13 = Rs.3,12,000/-. The appellants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.78,000/- @ 25% on account of future prospects. Thus, the appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,90,000/- (rupees three lacs ninety thousand only).
16. As regards, loss of estate, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,500/- whereas the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Similarly, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of funeral expanses whereas the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards love and affection whereas the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. The actual medical expanses of Rs.6,400/- awarded by the Tribunal, are not disputed.
17. Thus, the appellants are entitled to the following amount of compensation;
(i) Loss of dependency : Rs.3,12,000/-
(ii) Future prospects : Rs.78,000/-
(iii) Loss of estate : Rs.15,000/-
18. In so far as interest is concerned, the appellants are entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization as per Rule 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011.
19. In view of the above discussion, the impugned award dated 12th December, 2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Lucknow is modified and it is declared that the appellants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.4,67,000/- (rupees four lacs sixty seven thousand) along with interest @ 7% per annum from the filing of the petition till its realization. The respondent No.2, the New India Assurance Company is directed to pay the said amount. The apportionment of the compensation amount awarded herein above shall be in terms of the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.
20. The statutory deposit, if any, deposited by the Insurance Company, shall be refunded, as per Rules.
21. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
22. Lower court record along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately.
(Ved Prakash Vaish) Judge Order Date :- 26th Nov., 2019 cks/-