Court No. - 33
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2806 of 2010
Appellant :- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
Respondent :- Anant Ram And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Anubhav Chandra,Amit Manohar,Anuj Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- A.L. Gupta
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
1. Heard Sri Deewan Sanwala, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anuj Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant, Sri A.L. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and perused the record. No one is present on behalf of respondent no.2.
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 2.6.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.8/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Dehat in M.A.C.P. No.20 of 2009 (Anant Ram Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. and another), by which compensation of Rs.2,74,491/- along with 6% interest has been awarded to the claimant and the liability has been fixed upon the appellant U.P.S.R.T.C.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for appellant that age of the injured was 42 years at the time of accident and the Claims Tribunal has committed illegality in applying the multiplier of 15 whereas the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in 2009(2) TAC 677, has provided the multiplier of 14 for the age group of 41-45 years.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for claimant- respondent no.1 has not disputed the aforesaid legal position. It is submitted that Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects whereas the claimant is also entitled for future prospects of 25% as per law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017(4) T.A.C. 673.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) 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."
6. The quantum of compensation has been re-assessed in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
7. In view of aforesaid discussion, the quantum of compensation has been reassessed as follows:-
1) Monthly income = Rs.3,000/-
2) Annual income = Rs.3,000/- X 12 = Rs.36,000/-
3) Future prospects (25%) = Rs.9,000/-
4) Total annual income = Rs.36,000/- + Rs.9,000/- =Rs.45,000/-
5) Loss of annual income (40%) = Rs.18,000/-
6) Multiplier applicable (14) = Rs.18,000/- x 14 = Rs.2,52,000/-
7) Medical expenses = Rs.53,491/-
8) Pain and suffering = Rs.5,000/-
Total = Rs.2,52,000/- + Rs.53,491/- + Rs.5,000/-
= Rs.3,10,491/-
8. In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by appellant is hereby disposed of and award of the Claims Tribunal is modified and compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.2,74,491/- to Rs.3,10,491/-. The U.P.S.R.T.C is directed to pay enhanced amount of Rs.36,000/- along with 6% interest from the date of filing claim petition, within two months from today to the claimant- respondent no.1.
9. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 23.12.2021 Kpy