Marewwa vs Revansiddappa

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned-counsel for the respondents. The appeal is considered for final disposal at the stage of admission given that there are limited grounds on which the present appeal is filed. Firstly, it is pointed out that the claim is in respect of the death of the daughter of the claimants. The first appellant is the mother and the second appellant is the father of the deceased. Their age was 41 years and 51 years, respectively. Their daughter had met with a motor accident, as a result of which, she died. She was aged about 19 years and was an agricultural labourer at the time of her death. It is on that basis, that a claim of compensation was made.

The Tribunal has adopted a notional income of Rs. 3,000/- per month as the income of the deceased and has deducted 50% of the income while computing the loss of dependency of the claimants on the footing that the deceased was unmarried and therefore the standard deduction of 50% of the income would be in order. Further, under the several conventional heads, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has awarded frugal amounts and that it requires to be enhanced in all respects.

The learned counsel for the respondent would however oppose any such reconsideration and would point out that in the absence of any evidence of proof, the income of Rs. 3,000/- that is adopted is itself exorbitant and could not have been applied. Consequently, he points out that in the decision in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , the Supreme Court has laid down that the standard deduction to be made under the head of personal and living expenses of the deceased when the deceased was a bachelor, at 50% of the income of the deceased. Therefore the deduction of 50% of the income that is adopted is in order and would submit that the award of compensation under the other conventional heads is also generous and does not require reconsideration.

On these aspects, from a plain reading of the judgment, it is evident that the appeal can be disposed of summarily. In so far as the adoption of the notional income of Rs. 3,000/- is concerned, it is certainly on the lower side. This Court takes judicial notice of similar awards made over time and during the relevant period, in the absence of proof of income of an agricultural labourer, it is seen that an income of Rs. 4,000/- being adopted for purposes of computation of loss of dependency is not unusual. Secondly, in so far as the deduction of the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased is concerned, reference being drawn to Sarla Verma's case, requires to be viewed in the light that the Supreme Court was considering the living expenses of a bachelor and not an unmarried woman and therefore it would have to be taken into view that the life style of a bachelor and the life style of an unmarried woman in a rural area, would necessarily have to be kept in view and therefore to presume that an unmarried agricultural labourer would spend 50% of her income on herself cannot be readily accepted. The deduction made in respect of an unmarried bachelor living in an urban area and with a different life style as opposed to an agricultural labourer cannot be equated. Therefore, in the view of this fact, notwithstanding the observation of the Supreme Court that 50% of the income should be deducted towards living expenses of a bachelor, the same cannot be mechanically applied to a situation as in the present case on hand.

The deceased was a humble villager who was apparently-contributing her income to the family and the deduction of 50% of that income would result in depriving a sizeable amount of compensation to the appellants and therefore the deduction should be taken at 1/3rd. Even 1/3rd of the income being spent by the deceased on herself is doubtful. However, prudence would require that deduction be made at 1/3rd. Incidentally, the learned counsel for the appellants would fairly point out that the claimant-mother, was aged 40 at the time of the accident and multiplier of ''15'' should be adopted instead of ''16''. If 1/3rd of the income is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 50% and by adopting monthly income as Rs. 4,000/-, the appellants would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,92,060/- under the head of loss of dependency. In so far as other heads of compensation are concerned, it is noticed that the Tribunal has restricted the award of compensation to Rs. 10,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection, to Rs. 10,000/- under the head of mental shock and agony and to Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. These are all on the lower side. The Supreme Court has held that funeral expenses being taken at Rs. 5,000/- or Rs. 10,000/- would be very much on the lower side and is not realistic that a death occurring even in a poor family would attract substantial funeral expenses. Therefore the funeral expenses should be taken atleast at Rs. 20,000/-. The appellants are therefore held entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 15,000/- under the said head. As far as the compensation awarded under the heads of loss of love and affection and mental shock and agony on the death of the daughter of the appellants, the amounts awarded at Rs. 10,000/- each respectively, is very much on the lower side. The same can be doubled and therefore the appellants would be entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 10,000/-, each under the said heads. Hence, the appellants would be entitled to a total additional compensation of Rs. 2,27,060/- with interest thereon at 6% from the date of petition.