AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has bee preferred under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ''Act of 1988'')
seeking enhancement of compensation amount awarded by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (for
short, ''learned Tribunal'') by its award dated 19 th March,
2001. By the said award, the learned Tribunal, on
adjudication of the claim of appellants, has assessed
compensation in the tune of Rs. 2,13,500/- under different
heads in favour of the appellants.
Feeling aggrieved, the claimants/appellants have
preferred this appeal for enhancement of the award, mainly
on four grounds. Firstly, the income of the deceased
Ghanshyam has not been properly considered and
calculated. Secondly, looking to the number of dependents
upon deceased, deduction for his personal living expenses
has not been properly made. Thirdly, the multiplier has not
been properly pressed into service by the learned Tribunal.
Fourthly, the quantum of award for loss of consortium and
love and affection has not been properly determined by the
learned Tribunal.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has
vehemently argued on these grounds during his
submissions made before this Court. He has submitted that
apart from his regular monthly income of Rs.1,000/-,
deceased Ghanshyam was also earning a sum of Rs.1,500/-
per month by doing binding work in the printing press. AW-
3 Kedar has deposed in his statement about this income of
deceased but the learned Tribunal has erroneously
discarded the evidence in this regard. It has also been
argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that
admittedly there were four dependents of the deceased
Ghanshyam i.e. his wife Mrs. Gayatri and three children,
namely, Vijay Kumar, Priyanka and Satya Prakash who were
29 years, 11 years, 8 years and 5 years of age at the time
of his death. His submission is that in view of the judgment
pronounced by Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla
Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in
2009(6) SC 121, deduction for personal living expenses of
deceased Ghanshyam should have been made at the rate of
one-fourth whereas the learned Tribunal has allowed the
deduction at the rate of one-third which was not proper. It
has also been averred that in view of Sarla Verma''s
judgment (supra), multiplier of 16 should have been
pressed into service as the age of the deceased was 32
years at the time of death but the learned Tribunal
erroneously adopted the multiplier of 15 only. It has also
been argued that a meagre amount of Rs.15,000/- has
been awarded for the widow of deceased Ghanshyam, who
was merely of the age of 29 years at the time of death of
her husband. Likewise, a very meagre amount of
Rs.5,000/- each has been awarded to the children of
deceased Ghanshyam, who were deprived from the love
and affection of their father at the age of 11 years, 8 years
and 5 years only. It has also been stated that the interest
@ 6% per annum only has been awarded which is required
to be enhanced. Thus, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants has prayed that the appeal filed on behalf of the
widow and children of deceased Ghanshyam for
enhancement of the award amount may kindly be allowed.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company has forcefully
opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the appellants. He has submitted that in face of salary
certificate (Exhibit-9) produced on behalf of the claimants,
there was no justification to include the additional income of
the deceased for any private work. Thus, the learned
Tribunal was right in ignoring the said income allegedly
received by deceased from the binding work. The multiplier
has also been correctly pressed into service by the learned
Tribunal. Deduction for personal expenses of the deceased
can also not been faulted with. Learned counsel for the
respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company has submitted that
the award given by the learned Tribunal is just and
reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and
there is no justification for enhancing the same.
In light of the arguments advanced by the rival sides
and the judgments relied upon by them, I have given
thoughtful consideration to the material available on record.
The claim petition came to be filed by the claimants
with the averments that on 21.02.1996 when Ghanshyam
Chechani was making payment to the auto-rikshaw driver
after alighting therefrom at transport market, Bhilwara, a
truck bearing No. DLG 7409 came speedily and ran over
him and one more person standing near the road side.
Ghanshyam died on the spot due to the accident. He was
of the age of 32 years and was employed in M/s Sohan Lal
& Sons, Bhilwara on Rs.1000/- per month. He was also
earning Rs. 1500/- per month out of his private job. He
was having one wife and three children as his dependant
family members.
Insofar as, income of the deceased Ghanshyam is
concerned, it is to note that AW-1 Smt. Gayatri has stated
that her husband was employed in M/s Sohan Lal & Sons on
the monthly salary of Rs.1,000/-. Besides this, he used to
earn Rs.1000/- - 1500/- from the binding work. During
cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion that her
husband was not doing the binding work. AW-3 Kedar has
deposed that he runs "Dad Printing Press" and Ghanshyam
Chechani used to do binding work in his press and was paid
the amount as per the work done by him. Rs. 1000/- to Rs.
1200/- was being paid to him monthly on an average. He
has also denied the suggestion put during his cross-
examination that the deceased was not doing any work in
his press, though, he has admitted that he did not maintain
any account of the binding work. In light of these
statements, this inference is very well drawn that besides
the employment in M/s Sohan Lal & Sons at the monthly
salary of Rs.1000/-, deceased Ghanshyam was also doing
the binding work in Dad Printing Press and was earning
Rs.1000/- - Rs.1200/- per month on an average by doing
this work.
Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance
on the judgment in the case of Smt. Kaushnuma Begum
& Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. &
Ors. reported in 2001 WLC (SC) Civil 116 wherein, the
Hon''ble Apex Court has observed as follows:-
"22. Appellants'' claimed a sum of Rs.2,36,000/-. But PW-1 widow of the deceased said that her husband''s income was Rs.1,500/- per month. PW- 4 brother of the deceased also supported the same version. No contra evidence has been adduced in regard to that aspect. It is, therefore, reasonable to believe that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.1,500/-."
In this matter in hand also , no contra evidence has
been adduced by the respondent Insurance Company that
the deceased Ghanshyam was not doing any binding work.
On the contrary, AW-1 and AW-3 have denied the
suggestion put during their cross-examination that
deceased Ghanshyam was not doing any binding work. In
view of this, the conclusion arrived at by the learned
Tribunal to discard the income of deceased Ghanshyam by
way of doing binding work cannot be sustained. The
argument advanced in this regard by the learned counsel
for the respondent No.3 is also not found convincing that in
face of salary certificate (Exhibit-9), the additional income
of the deceased by way of binding work could not have
been taken into consideration. It is an established case of
the appellants that besides the regular employment in M/s
Sohan Lal & Sons, the deceased was doing binding work on
part-time basis in Dad Printing Press. In such circumstance,
the income of part-time job was necessarily required to be
clubbed in the monthly income of regular employment of
the deceased. Thus, taking the minimum amount as
deposed by AW-3, which is Rs.1000/- per month earned by
the deceased on an average by the binding work, his total
income comes to Rs.2,000/- per month i.e., Rs.1000/- from
regular employment in M/s Sohan Lal & Sons and Rs.1000/-
from the binding work on part-time basis.
Besides it, learned Tribunal has allowed the addition of
50% in income of deceased for future prospects. No
contention has been raised on behalf of the respondents
against this addition. Hence, while allowing the addition of
50% in income for future prospects, the income of the
deceased Ghanshyam comes to Rs.3,000/- per month.
Learned Tribunal has deducted one-third of the income
of deceased for his personal living expenses. In view of the
contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants
that there are, in all, four dependents upon the deceased
namely, his wife and three children, the deduction for
personal expenses ought to have been calculated at the
rate of one-fourth. In this regard, guidance can be taken
from the decision given by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Sarla
Verma''s case (supra) wherein, it has been held as
follows:-
"14. .................... Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3 rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one- fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six."
In my considered view, deduction for personal living
expenses is required to be allowed as per Sarla Verma''s
case at the rate of one-fourth (1/4 th) in place of one-third
(1/3rd) which was allowed by the learned Tribunal taking
into consideration of number of dependents upon the
deceased. Thus, the net income of the deceased
Ghanshyam to be taken into consideration comes to
Rs.2,250/- (Rs.3000 - 750/-).
Learned Tribunal has pressed into service the
multiplier of 15 for which, no reason has been assigned in
the award impugned. It is pertinent to note here that to
standardize the calculation of and to maintain uniformity in
the awards passed by various Tribunals through-out the
country, the Hon''ble Apex Court has drawn a table in para
19 of the judgment rendered in Sarla Verma''s case
(supra). The view expressed in Sarla Verma''s case (supra)
has further been fortified by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the
judgment rendered in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan
Mohan & Anr., reported in 2013 ACJ 1253.
In Reshma Kumari''s case (supra), the Hon''ble Apex
Court was addressing the issues referred to the larger
bench to consider the divergence observations made in
various judgments. Having taken into consideration various
aspects, the Hon''ble Apex Court observed as follows in para
34 of the judgment in Reshma Kumari''s case:-
"34. If the multiplier as indicated in column (4) of the Table read with para 21 of the Report in Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), is followed, the wide variations in the selection of multiplier in the claims of compensation in fatal accident cases can be avoided. A standard method for selection of multiplier is surely better than a criss-cross of varying methods. It is high time that we move to a standard method of selection of multiplier, income for future prospects and deduction for personal and living expenses. The courts in some of the overseas jurisdictions have made this advance. It is for these reasons, we
think we must approve the Table in Sarla Verma (supra) for the selection of multiplier in claim applications made under section 166 in the cases of death. We do accordingly..................."
In the matter in hand, there is no dispute as to the
age of deceased Ghanshyam, which was admittedly 32
years at the time of his death. Thus, as per the table given
in para 19 of Sarla Verma''s case (supra), the multiplier of
16 is required to be pressed into service for the age of 32
years. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,32,000/-
(Rs.2250/- x 12 x 16) in place of Rs.1,80,000/- as
calculated by the learned Tribunal.
Further, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.15,000/- for the loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- each
to the three children of the deceased for loss of love and
affection. It is pertinent to note here that at the time of
death of deceased Ghanshyam, his wife Gayatri was stated
to be 29 years of age and his children, namely, Vijay Kumar,
Kumari Priyanka and Satya Prakash, were stated to be 11,
8 and 5 years of age. Definitely, they have been deprived
of the help, care, protection and love and affection of their
father/husband at a very tender age. Suffering of the family
due to untimely death of single bread-winner cannot be
compensated in terms of money but even then, the Tribunal
is expected to make some endevarous to gauge the wounds
of the family. As this law of compensation is a welfare
measure, a benevolent view is required to be taken to give
solace to the bereaved family members by awarding a just
and reasonable amount in this head.
In my considered opinion, the amount is required to
be enhanced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.50,000/- for loss of
consortium and from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/- each to the
three children for loss of love and affection. Thus, in all,
Rs.50,000/- + Rs. 45,000/- is required to be awarded in
favour of the claimants-appellants on these heads. Thus,
the total amount of award comes to Rs.4,32,000/-+
Rs.50,000/-+Rs.45,000/- = Rs.5,27,000/-.
Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants has also
submitted that a simple interest @ 6% per annum has been
awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of filing of
the petition which is very meagre. Per contra, learned
counsel for the respondent No. 3 Insurance Company
submits that this was a reasonable rate of interest in the
year 2001 when the award was given. I do not feel
persuaded to concur with the argument advanced by the
learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Even in the year
2001, the rate of interest awarded at 6% per annum was on
the lower side. This requires to be enhanced at least to
7.5% per annum. This rate of interest of 7.5% will be
applicable, of course, from the date of filing of the claim
petition.
Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the claimants-
appellants is allowed in terms of whatever stated above.
The quantum of award is enhanced to Rs.5,27,000/- and
the rate of interest is enhanced to 7.5% per annum with
simple interest from the date of filing of the claim petition.
The respondents are directed to pay the enhanced
amount of compensation to the appellants-claimants, jointly
or severally, within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.
Costs are made easy.
The appeal stands disposed off accordingly.