Court No. - 33
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1933 of 2016
Appellant :- U.P.S.R.T.C.
Respondent :- Smt. Manorma Chaturvedi And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- Atul Kumar Singh,Jay Prakash Singh
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for appellant, Sri Jay Prakash Singh, learned counsel for claimants-respondents no.1 and 2 and perused the record. No one is present on behalf of respondent no.3.
2. The present first appeal from order has been filed by the appellant U.P.S.R.T.C. against the judgment and award dated 10.3.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.8/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad in M.A.C.P. No.636 of 2012 (Smt. Manorma Chaturvedi and another Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. and another), by which compensation of Rs.24,42,548/- along with 7% interest has been awarded in favour of claimants-respondents no.1 and 2. The appeal has been preferred by the appellant only to challenge the quantum of compensation.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for appellant that income of the deceased was not proved but it was accepted as Rs.14,954/- per month. It is further submitted that age of the deceased was 26 years and the Claims Tribunal had committed illegality in applying the multiplier of 18 in place of 17. It is further submitted that compensation has been awarded on higher side and the interest at the rate of 7% is also on higher side.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for claimants- respondents has submitted that deceased was working as Constable in Uttar Pradesh Police and the claimants had proved the income of the deceased by producing salary certificate issued by the Police Department discloses the monthly income as Rs.14,954/- and there was no evidence adduced by the appellant in rebuttal and as such the Tribunal has rightly accepted the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.14,954/- per month. It is further submitted that multiplier was also rightly applied by the Claims Tribunal.
5. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, it is apparent that the income of the deceased was proved but so far as the multiplier is concerned, as per own case of the claimants the age of the deceased was 26 years at the time of accident and as such the appropriate multiplier would be 17 in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in 2009(2) TAC 677.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017(4) T.A.C. 673 has laid down the certain guidelines for calculating the just compensation. The relevant paragraph 61 is reproduced hereunder:-
"61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
(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."
7. In view of above discussion the quantum of compensation is reassessed as follows:-
1) Monthly income = Rs.14,954/-
2) Annual income = Rs.14,954/- X 12 = Rs.1,79,448/-
3) Future prospects (50%) = Rs.89,724/-
4) Total annual income = Rs.1,79,448/- + Rs.89,724/-
= Rs.2,69,172/-
5) After deduction (1/2) = Rs.2,69,172/- - Rs.1,34,586/- towards personal expenses = Rs.1,34,586/-
6) Multiplier applicable (17) = Rs.1,34,586/- x 17 = Rs.22,87,962/-
7) Non-pecuniary damages = Rs.70,000/-
Total = Rs.22,87,962/- + Rs.70,000/-
= Rs.23,57,962/-
8. In view of above, the appeal filed by appellant is partly allowed and award of the Claims Tribunal is modified and compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reduced from Rs.24,42,548/- to Rs.23,57,962/-. Record shows that the appellant was required to pay 50% of the awarded amount to the claimants by interim stay order dated 4.7.2016. Appellant is directed to pay remaining amount of compensation to the claimants-respondents within two months from today.
9. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
10. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 16.12.2021 Kpy