Mr. Ravindra Nath Sharma and Others vs Mr. Mohanlal and Others

G.P. Mittal, J.—This appeal is for enhancement of compensation in respect of death of Ms. Phool Varsha Sharma who was aged about 53 years at the time of accident which took place on 25.02.2008. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) by the impugned award dated 12.04.2010 awarded a compensation of Rs.9,20,000/-

On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Toyota Innova No. DL-4C-AE 4543 which was driven by respondent No.1; was owned by respondent No.2 and was insured by respondent No.3 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. With regard to the payment of the compensation, the Tribunal opined that the deceased was survived by his son appellant No.2, daughter-in-law appellant No.3, grandsons appellants No.4 & 5. The Tribunal held that Ravinder Nath Sharma(appellant No.1) was the only dependent claimant on the deceased; took the net income of the deceased Rs.12,078/- applied the multiplier of 9 calculated the dependency at Rs.8,69,616/- after awarding conventional sum for loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of state, computed the compensation as Rs.9,20,000/-.

The appellants'' grievance is that at the deceased age (53 years), the appropriate multiplier as per Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, was 11. Her actual income was Rs.32,238/- which ought to have been taken into consideration for computing the compensation. It is averred that even if the son was not financially dependent, he was a legal heir and deduction of 1/3 ought to have been made instead of 1/2.

No cross-appeal/cross-objections have been filed by the respondents. The deceased was employed as a stenographer Grade-I in Prasar Bharti, Doordarshan. Her gross salary was Rs.32,238/-. There were certain recoveries and she was contributing Rs.10,000/- per month towards GPF. An amount of Rs.20,160/- was deducted from the deceased actual income by the tribunal without any basis. In fact after filing of the appeal, a certificate was filed as Annexure A/1 along with the affidavit of the appellant Ravindra Nath Sharma to show that the deduction of Rs.10,000/- was made from the salary towards the third installment of leave without pay availed by the deceased during the period 07.05.2007 to 11.08.2007 and 12.08.2007 to 27.09.2007. Thus, recovery of Rs.10,000/- towards over pay and deduction of Rs.10,000/- towards GPF could not have been taken into consideration while computing the deceased actual income minus Income Tax.

It is urged on behalf of the respondent insurance company that the deceased was 53 years of age and even if she would have worked till her superannuation, she was entitled to the salary only for the period of seven years. Thus, urged the learned counsel for the respondent that the appropriate multiplier was 7.

The multiplier method has been adopted to bring uniformity and award just compensation. The selection of multiplier was renewed by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) after reviewing the entire law on the subject. It cannot be said that many of the government employees work after their superannuation. Some of them even get placements higher than at the time of superannuation. In these circumstances, multiplier of 11 ought to have been applied as per the law laid down in Sarla Verma (supra).

The son might be a legal heir, but he was not financially dependent on the deceased. In Sarla Verma, the Supreme Court held that while computing the dependency, father was not to be considered dependent as he was likely to have his own income unless evidence was led to the contrary. In the circumstances, the son, daughter-in-law and the grand children were rightly not considered dependents by the Tribunal for the purpose of computing the compensation.

In para 20 of the Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court held that actual income of the deceased less Income Tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation. Since the deceased was 53 years, she was not entitled to any increase on account of future prospects. On the basis of net income, the actual salary works out as Rs.32,238/- X 12 =386856 - Income Tax Rs.61,300/- (for a female for the Assessment Year 2008-09) = 3,25,556/- per annum. On applying the multiplier of 11 and deducting 50% towards personal living expenses, the compensation for loss of dependency is computed as Rs.17,90,558/-. On addition of Rs.25,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of state as granted by the tribunal. The total compensation works out to Rs.18,35,558/-.

The appellant No.1 shall be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on enhanced compensation of ( Rs.18,35,558 - 9,20,000/-) Rs.9,15,558/- from the filing of the petition till the realization of the amount (as granted by the Tribunal) which the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay. Respondent No.3 Oriental Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch within six weeks from today. 20% of the amount along with interest shall be deposited in the Savings Account which the appellant shall be entitled to withdraw at his will. Rest of the amount shall be held in Fixed Deposit Receipt for a period of three years. Appellant No.1 shall not be entitled to premature withdrawal of any amount without the leave of the Court.

The appeal is allowed in above terms.