AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is instituted by the claimants, i.e. the parents of the deceased Brajesh Kumar, to challenge the Judgment and Award dated 14.02.2013 in T.M.V. No. 95 of 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bokaro, seeking enhancement of compensation.
Ms Suchitra Pandey appeared through video conferencing and submitted that almost two years ago, she withdrew her appearance. Mr Prabhat Kumar Sinha appeared for the 1st respondent (owner) and Mr Amresh Kumar appeared on behalf of the National Insurance Company Limited, i.e. 3rd respondent herein.
This is an appeal of the year 2013. The matter was adjourned from time to time as neither the appellants nor any advocate on their behalf appeared in the matter. Possibly, the appellants could not arrange for an advocate to appear on their behalf or appear in the matter themselves. Accordingly, I requested Ms Suchitra Pandey to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. Ms Pandey graciously agreed to assist the Court as an Amicus Curiae and, after some time, made her submissions in support of the appeal.
Ms Pandey submitted that the deceased, Brajesh Kumar, was 25 years old at the time of the accident. He was an MCA student at Birla Institute of Technology, Ranchi, a premier institute. She further submitted that the deceased had passed his B.Sc (Hons.) and was, in fact, working as a tutor. She further submitted that, although he was earning Rs. 4000/- per month from this tuition job, given that he had secured admission to a premier technology institute, held a B.Sc (Hons.) degree, and already had experience as a tutor, his income should be determined substantially higher than Rs. 4000/-, having regard to his future prospects. She further submitted that, since this aspect has not been considered, the impugned award warrants interference.
Ms Pandey, without prejudice, submitted that not even a 40% to 50% increase was allowed towards future prospects and this would be contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd versus Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680. She submitted that the deceased was 25 years old at the time of the accident and therefore, the multiplier would be 18 and not 17. She submitted that no compensation has been paid towards consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate. She submitted that all this is again contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra).
Ms Pandey submitted that for all the above reasons, the compensation amount must be substantially enhanced by allowing this appeal.
Mr Amresh Kumar learned counsel for the 3rd respondent (Insurance Company) submitted that in the claim petition itself, it was pleaded that the deceased’s income was Rs. 4000/- per month, which was accepted by the Tribunal. He submitted that the Tribunal has erred in deducting only 1/3rd of the amount toward personal expenses of the deceased, even though there was no dispute that the deceased was a bachelor at the time of the accident and his consequent death. He submitted that the deductions should have been 50% in terms of the law laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra).
Accordingly, Mr Amresh Kumar submitted that this appeal may be dismissed.
The rival contentions now fall for my determination.
Insofar as the deceased's income is concerned, there is no doubt that the claimants, in their claim petition, honestly pleaded that their 25-year-old son, Brajesh Kumar, while studying at Birla Institute of Technology, Ranchi, was giving tuition and earning Rs. 4000/- per month.
Based upon the above pleadings and also the evidence led, the Tribunal has accepted that the deceased was earning Rs. 4000/- per month at the time of his unfortunate demise in a vehicular accident. In terms of the law laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), normally an addition of 40% to 50% would have been made to the monthly income. Even this has not been done in the present case.
However, as was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kalu Ram and Others, 2026 INSC 653, even a mere addition of 40 to 50% without evaluating the fact position would amount to adjudication of compensation “in sterile mathematical terms alone detached from human element underlying such claims”.
Similar to the factual circumstances of the present case, in Kalu Ram (supra), the deceased, Akash Kumar, aged 20 years, died in a vehicular accident on 11.06.2013. At the time of his death, the deceased had reached the final stage of a professional Chartered Accountancy course and was at the threshold of entering the profession. Although the evidence on record established that the actual stipend received by the deceased was ranging from Rs. 3,595/- to Rs. 14,410/- per month, the Tribunal considered his future professional prospects and assessed his income at Rs. 55,500/- per month. This was based on the likely earnings of an entry-level Group-A officer, having regard to his educational and professional trajectory. After making deductions for income tax and personal expenses, the Tribunal added another 50% for future prospects, applied a multiplier of 18, and, under various conventional heads, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 81,21,900/-, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition.
Though the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that there was some duplication because on account of future prospects, the income of the deceased was already taken as Rs. 55,500/- per month and therefore, there was no question of further addition of 50% towards future prospects, still, considering that the accident had taken place in 2013 and the case concerns the loss of a young life with promising professional potential, the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not interfere with the determination of compensation. All this is evident from the reasoning in paragraphs 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that reducing the compensation payable to the claimants, i.e. the parents of the deceased, at this stage on account of what is essentially a technical overlap in the methodology adopted by the Tribunal would not advance the cause of substantive justice. Significantly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the loss suffered by the parents of the deceased cannot be measured with arithmetical precision, and the compensation awarded, viewed holistically, cannot be said to transgress the bounds of ‘just compensation’ under the MV Act. The beneficial character of the legislation, the long passage of time since the accident, the concurrent assessment made by the Tribunal and the High Court, and the impossibility of placing a precise monetary value upon the loss of a young life, are good enough reasons not to disturb the compensation awarded towards loss of dependency.
In paragraph-22, however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned that while determination of compensation under the MV Act is guided by the principle of awarding ‘just compensation’, such determination cannot travel into the realm of conjecture. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that there was evidence of the stipend being earned by the deceased, but there was no cogent material on record to establish the alleged income from private tuition. Equally, the assertion of the claimants that the deceased would certainly qualify as a Chartered Accountant and thereafter earn substantially higher income remains a matter of future uncertainty. The Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned that compensation cannot be founded on assumptions of assured professional success or on salary benchmarks of unrelated successful professionals.
Considering the law laid down in Kanu Ram (Supra) and the observations therein on a factual situation which is quite similar to the fact-situation in the present case, I am satisfied that the interest of justice and the principle that just compensation should be awarded in such matters would not be achieved by merely adding 40-50% towards future prospects.
The evidence on record in this case unmistakably shows that the deceased, after obtaining a B.Sc. (Hon) degree, secured admission to the MCA Course at Birla Institute of Technology, Ranchi, a premier course at a premier institute. One of the claimants deposed that the deceased was a brilliant student. These aspects cannot be altogether overlooked when determining just compensation.
The Tribunal justifiably accepted evidence that, while studying, the deceased earned Rs. 4,000/- per month as a part-time tutor and used that income to help his parents. P.W-2 also deposed to the same effect. P.W-3, a student of the deceased, deposed that he used to take tuition from the deceased and pay him Rs. 400/- per month. He further deposed that other students were also taking tuition from the deceased, and therefore the deceased must have been earning Rs. 4,000/- per month from tuition alone. P.W-4, another student, also deposed to the same effect, except that, according to him, the deceased, who used to teach maths, was earning more than Rs. 4,000/- per month from tuition. All this evidence has withstood cross-examination. No evidence was led by any of the respondents to prove anything to the contrary.
In these circumstances, it is reasonable to hold that, upon completion of his MCA Course at the Birla Institute of Technology within a year or two, the deceased could certainly have earned a substantial amount, given his educational qualifications, experience as a private tutor, and his otherwise brilliant academic career. Incidentally, the evidence on record shows that the deceased had already obtained a B.Sc (Hons.) Degree before being admitted to the MCA Course at the Birla Institute of Technology.
As held in Kanu Ram (Supra), the life of a young individual and the loss suffered by his parents can never be measured in precise monetary terms, and the determination of ‘just compensation’ under the M.V Act does not admit of any mathematical exactitude. Some elements of guesswork by way of inferences from the evidence on record are certainly permissible. Therefore, upon considering all these aspects, including the brilliant academic career of the deceased, his qualifications, his admission to the MCA Course in Birla Institute of Technology, his experience as a private tutor from which he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month, it would be reasonable to determine his monthly income at Rs. 10,000/- by accounting for his future prospects. No doubt, this would include a normal 40-50% addition usually made for future prospects, lest there be any technical duplication.
Even the determination of Rs. 10,000/- per month is conservative, considering that the deceased was already earning Rs. 4,000/- per month; adding 50% would bring it to Rs. 6,000/- per month. These earnings were from his work as a part-time tutor. So, there is certainly scope to at least double the same. In all probability, and as a legitimate and reasonable expectation, upon securing his MCA from Birla Institute of Technology, the deceased's income would rise exponentially. Therefore, the determination of the deceased’s income at Rs. 10,000/- per month is on a conservative basis and not some speculation or a guess backed by no evidence; The circumstance that the deceased was only 25 years old, studying but had already demonstrated his earning potential through part-time tuitions, and his brilliant academic career cannot be overlooked. As it is, the loss of a 25-year-old child on the threshold of a promising career can never be compensated in monetary terms.
The deceased was admittedly a bachelor at the time of his demise in a vehicular accident. Therefore, 50% deduction is due as that could be the amount he would have spent on himself. The monthly income of the deceased for determining dependency would therefore have to be taken at Rs. 5,000/-per month or Rs. 60,000/- per annum. The multiplier in this case would be 18 since the deceased was 25 years old at the time of his demise in a vehicular accident. The compensation towards dependency would therefore have to be assessed at Rs. 10,80,000/-.
In addition, compensation of Rs. 40,000/- will have to be awarded to each of the claimants. Besides, Rs. 15,000/- will have to be paid towards funeral expenses and another Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. This takes the total compensation to Rs. 11,90,000/-.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, and the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs. 5,44,000/- to Rs. 11,90,000/-. This compensation amount will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual realisation of this amount.
The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount, after adjusting the payments already made by way of deposit in this Court, within six weeks from today. An intimation should be furnished through the learned Amicus Curiae and the Member Secretary of JHALSA. Upon deposit, the appellants will be entitled to withdraw the amount by furnishing identity and bank details so that the Registry can transfer this amount directly into their bank accounts. Under no circumstances should any payments be made otherwise than through regular banking channels.
The Member Secretary, JHALSA, with the help of the Secretary, DLSA, Bokaro, must contact the appellants, if necessary, with the assistance of police authorities (if found really necessary), and ensure that the compensation amount now awarded reaches them at the earliest. Member Secretary must file a compliance report in this Court as a matter of record.
This Court would be failing in its duty if it did not thank Ms Suchitra Pandey, who appeared as an Amicus Curiae in this matter and argued in support of the appeal. JHALSA must, in this case, pay Ms Suchitra Pandey the fees paid to panel Advocates, preferably within two months of today. This fee is in addition to the gratitude this Court expresses to Ms Pandey for assisting the Court and the appellants herein. At this stage, Ms Pandey states that JHALSA need not make any payments to her. This is both accepted and appreciated.
This Court also appreciates the fair approach of Mr Amresh Kumar in this matter. Though Mr Amresh Kumar left no stone unturned in the interest of the Insurance Company, it needs to be noted that he was quite fair in his approach.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms without any order for costs. IAs, if pending, are disposed of.