AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[1] These appeals arise out of a common award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, dated 19th December, 2018. MAC APP. No.54/2019 is filed by the insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. MAC APP. No.84/2019 is filed by the claimants. They seek enhancement of the compensation awarded.
[2] These appeal arise in following background :
On 9th July, 2016 one Rupak Ghosh was travelling on his motorcycle. A four wheeler coming from the opposite direction collided with the motorcycle at Noukaghat, Sepahijala causing fatal injuries to the motorcyclist. Deceased was, aged about 29 years and unmarried person. His parents, brother and sister filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.25,20,000/- from the owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. Before the Claims Tribunal, claimants had examined claimant No.3 brother of the deceased as PW.1. He stated that the deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of accident. He was the eldest of the siblings. He was running a sweet shop as also a poultry farm business from which income he was sustaining the entire family. He produced relevant documents such as his driving licence, death certificate and school leaving certificate of the deceased. In the cross-examination, the insurance company questioned the witness about the engagement of the deceased as a sweet shop owner and operator. The witness clarified that since his father was aged and unwell, it was the deceased who was running the sweet shop. The claimants also examined two more witnesses PWs.2 and 3 who were the eye-witnesses to the incident and who had also given a similar version of the deceased running a sweet made shop since the father was unable to do it.
[3] The Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of four wheeler. With respect to this aspect the insurance company has not raised any dispute in this appeal. The appeal of the insurance company is confined to the quantum of compensation. I may, therefore, focus only on this aspect.
[4] While computing the compensation, the Claims Tribunal believed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal did not accept the evidence of the witnesses that the deceased was running a sweet shop since no documents were produced. The Tribunal treated the deceased as a manual labourer and believed that he could have earn Rs.6,000/- per month in such capacity. The Tribunal granted 40% rise for the future income and adopted a multiplier of 17 considering the age of the deceased as 29 years and few months which was established through documentary evidence. The Tribunal set apart one-fourth for the personal expenditure of the deceased and awarded a total sum of Rs.13,94,000/-towards loss of dependency benefits. To this, the Tribunal added Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.14,64,000/- to the claimants. There was no apportionment of such compensation between the claimants.
[5] Appearing for the insurance company in MAC APP. No.54/2019 learned counsel Ms. R Purkayastha submitted that the deceased was a bachelor. The brother and sister were both major, they were therefore not dependant on him. The Tribunal, therefore, should have deducted one-half for the personal expenditure of the deceased and not one-forth as was done by the Claims Tribunal.
[6] On the other hand, learned counsel Ms. S Chakraborty for the claimants in MAC APP. No.84/2019 submitted that the Tribunal committed a serious error in assessing income of the deceased at only Rs.6,000/- per month though the deceased was running a sweet shop. Further, the brother and sister were also dependant on the deceased since they did not have any other independent source of income.
[7] The evidence on record would suggest that deceased, aged about 29 years at the time of accident, was unmarried. His brother was aged about 27 years. His sister though younger, was also major. In absence of any other evidence on record, they could not have been treated as the dependent of the deceased. Thus the deceased was a bachelor and the dependant-claimants were his parents. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, deduction for personal expenditure, therefore, ought to have been 50% and not one-forth as was done by the Tribunal. To this extent, I fully agree with the contention of the counsel for the insurance company.
[8] However, there are certain other aspects of the computation of compensation which required modification also. As noted, according to the claimants, the deceased was running a sweet shop and was also engaged in poultry farm business. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever about poultry farm business, this claim of the claimants should be rejected. However, according to the claimants, the sweet shop was in the name of the father and father being aged and unwell it was the deceased who was running the shop full-time. This has been so stated by PW.1 claimant No.3 as well as the two witnesses PWs.2 and 3 examined by the claimants.
[8] Under the circumstances, though one cannot believe the income of the deceased to be Rs.15,000/- as claimed in the claim petition, it can be safely assessed at Rs.10,000/- per month at the time of accident. Considering the age of the deceased, as per the decision of Sarla Verma(supra) and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, there shall be 40% increase for future rise making prospective income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- per month. 50% thereof would be set apart for the personal expenditure of the deceased leaving Rs.7,000/- per month for the parents i.e. Rs.84,000/- per annum. Applying a multiplier of 17, as suggested by the Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma(supra), loss of dependency benefits come to Rs.14,28,000/-.
[9] In a recent decision the Supreme Court in case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and Ors., Civil Appeal No.2705/2020 reported in MANU/SC/0500/2020 dated 30th June, 2020 has discussed the issue of awarding compensation for loss of consortium in motor accident claim cases and come to the conclusion that such loss of consortium should be awarded not only in favour of the spouse of the deceased but also in favour of parents if the child dies and in favour of children if the parent dies. Further, such award is to be made per claimant. There would, therefore, be an award of Rs.40,000/- per parent towards loss of consortium. This would be further added by Rs.15,000/-each for loss of estate and funeral expenses. The total compensation, therefore, comes to Rs.15,38,000/- (i.e. Rs.14,28,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 15,000 + 15,000/-). Such compensation would be received in equal proportion by both the claimants No.1 and 2. The claimants No.3 and 4 would receive no compensation.
[10] The insurance company shall deposit the deficit amount of compensation before the Claims Tribunal with proportionate cost and interest @ 7% per annum from the date of claim petition till deposit. This shall be done within 8(eight) weeks from today. Upon such deposit, the Claims Tribunal shall disburse 30% in favour of Claimants No.1 and 2 in equal proportion. Remaining amount shall be invested in a fixed deposit in any nationalized Bank for a period of 5(five) years. Such fixed deposits shall be in the name of claimants No.1 and 2 in equal proportion. They would receive periodic interest accruing thereon. Upon completion of the said period, the amount shall be paid over to the respective claimants.
MAC APP.54/2019 is dismissed and MAC APP. No.84/2019 is allowed-in-part. Both appeals are disposed of. Records may be transmitted to the Claims Tribunal. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.