Om Prakash Verma & Ors vs Sonu Singh & Ors.

This Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as Tribunal') vide impugned award dated 11.02.2006, whereby an award for an

amount of Rs. 5, 31, 000/ has passed in favour of the claimantsappellants.

The brief facts for the disposal of this appeal are that one Rakesh Kumar Verma (hereinafter referred to be ""deceased"") son of appellants No. 1

and 2, brother of appellants 3 and 4 and brotherinlaw of appellant no. 5 while traveling in Swaraj Mazda vehicle bearing registration No.

JK02P/3484, which was on its way from Jammu to Srinagar, met with an accident, as a result of which he died. The appellants preferred a claim

petition before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 50.00 lac along with interest @ 12% p.a. The learned Tribunal after

hearing the parties passed an award amounting to Rs. 5, 31, 000/vide order dated 11.02.2006 in favour of the claimants. It is this award which is

being challenged in the present appeal.

The appellants have submitted that deceased at the time of death was 33 years of age. He was working as Medical Representative with one

M/s American Remedies Ltd. upto 1991 and thereafter he joined Cross Lands Research Laboratories Ltd. as a Field Sales Officer upto 1993. In

1993, the deceased joined Plethico Pharmaceuticals upto year 2000 on a monthly salary of Rs. 12,000 to 15,000/. It is stated that the deceased

finally took the distribution of M/s BioGenetic. It is stated that the monthly sales of the deceased was about Rs. 33, 436 and after deducting the

sales tax, it comes to Rs. 27, 452 and thus the deceased was earning profit of 62%, which comes to the tune of Rs. 17, 063/. It is further stated

that certificates in this regard were provided before the learned Tribunal but this aspect of the matter was not taken into consideration by it while

passing the impugned award. It is further stated that the deceased despite being selected in J&K Bank services did not join. Had he joined the

Bank service, he would be getting pay of Rs. 15, 000/ to Rs. 20, 000/ per month and would have at least retired as a Manager. It is thus submitted

that the learned Tribunal has eommitted an error in passing the award impugned by not taking into consideration the earnings of the deceased.

Respondents were put on notice. Mr. Sachin Sharma has caused appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2 and Mr. Vishnu Gupta for

respondent No. 3. Nobody was present on behalf of respondent No. 1, but it seems that on 06.05.2008 he had caused his appearance before the

Registry.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The determination of compensation by the learned Tribunal is being questioned by the appellants. It has come to record that the deceased was a

distributor of M/s Bio Genetic whose monthly sales proceed was Rs. 33, 436 and after deducting sales tax, it would come to Rs. 27, 452/ and net

profit come to Rs. 17, 063/. It has also come on record that the deceased was selected in the J&K Bank but did not join the same as he intended

to go higher in life by managing his own business. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was a meritorious student.

The learned trial Court has ignored this aspect of the matter on the ground that the ownership and income tax returns of the firm were not

proved. The learned trial court has assessed Rs. 6000/ per month income of the deceased presumably on the basis that the deceased was not

employed gainfully and was able body man would earn this amount. This in my opinion was not the correct approach adopted by the learned

Tribunal. The documents produced by the appellants showing the deceased was having a distribution agency, whose sales proceed comes to Rs.

33, 436/ per month, may not have been proved, but fact of the matter is that the deceased was gainfully employed and would have earned more

what was determined by the trial court. It was not a case where deceased was not gainfully employed. It could be a case where appellants have

failed to prove the exact amount being earned by the deceased, but it is a fact, as stated by the appellants, that he was contributing Rs. 10, 000 to

12, 000 per month running of house. The learned Tribunal could have determined the income between Rs. 6000/ to 12,000 per month.

I, therefore, hold that monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 9000/ per month and after deducting I/3rd of income for his personal

expense, it comes to Rs. 6000/ which can be treated as monthly economic loss to the appellants and annual loss comes to Rs. 72, 000/. This

annual loss of dependency after applying multiplier of 11 comes to Rs. 7,92, 000/ and Rs. 3, 000/ shall be just compensation for funeral expenses.

I, accordingly, hold that the appellants would be entitled to the following compensation:

Loss of dependency:

Rs. 7. 92.000/

Funeral expenses:

Rs. 3.000/

Rs.7. 95. 000/

(Rupees Seven Lac ninety , five thousand only).

This amount of award minus the amount already received shall be paid by the respondentInsurer in terms of the award dated 11.02.2006 with

interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment is made.

In view of the above, the impugned award dated 11.02.2006 is modified to the extent referred to above and the appeal is, accordingly,

allowed.