Pramod Sharma vs Pawan Kumar and others

Mahesh Bhagwati, J.—The appellant has filed this appeal for the enhancement of quantum of compensation under the impugned award dated 2.6.2001 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kotputali.

The learned counsel for the appellant has centered his argument only on one point that learned Tribunal has erroneously reduced 1/3rd amount from the notional income of the deceased. He has canvassed that when the notional income for compensation is taken into consideration as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, then 1/3rd amount is not permitted to be reduced towards the expenses to be incurred on the maintenance of the victim himself had he/she been alive. He has cited one judgment reported in Mukti v. Happu Singh, MACD 2008 (2) (Raj) 669 in support thereof.

In the case of Mukti v. Happu Singh, MACD 2008 (2) (Raj) 669, this court has observed as under:

It is directed that the payment of compensation to the claimants shall be made on the total annual notional income of Rs. 15,000 multiplied by the multiplier of 18, in this manner an amount of Rs. 1,35,000 awarded to claimants shall be liable to be doubled to Rs. 2,70,000 with compensation awarded under other heads being maintained.

The Co-ordinate Bench relied upon the case of Hanuman v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., MACD 2007 (1) (Raj) 616, wherein it was held that "when computation of compensation is made on notional income basis, taking that factor into account further deduction even on that minimum amount ought not to be made, particularly when already the amount of income is on reduced scale".

Learned counsel for the respondents has not opposed this legal argument.

Having reflected on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the relevant material including the impugned award, it is noticed that the learned Tribunal firstly took the notional income of the deceased into consideration which is Rs. 15,000 per annum as per the Second Schedule to the Act and secondly, reduced 1/3rd amount from the same towards expenses being incurred on herself had she been alive. The Co-ordinate Bench of this court has deprecated this interpretation. In fact, notional income for compensation is to be taken into consideration only in the case of those persons who had no income prior to accident. When the deceased had no income, how can it be said that he would have spent 1/3rd of his income on himself had he/she been alive. The person can be deemed to have spent 1/3rd of his income on himself only in that situation when he, in fact, earns money. If there is no income, there can be no expenditure. The learned Tribunal has wrongly reduced 1/3rd from the notional income of Rs. 15,000 and in view of the aforesaid judgment the total annual notional income should be taken into consideration for the computation of amount of compensation. In the instant case, the age of the deceased was 50 years, which stands substantiated by the post-mortem report also wherein the doctor has mentioned the age of the deceased to be 50 years and as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, a multiplier of 11 is to be applied. Thus, the appellant is entitled to get the following amount of compensation:

Rs. 15,000 x 11 = Rs. 1,65,000.

Rest of the amount awarded on different heads shall remain unchanged.

For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. After deducting the interim award of Rs. 50,000 the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 1,19,000 (Rs. 1,65,000 + Rs. 2,000 + Rs. 2,000 - Rs. 50,000) from the respondents severally or jointly. He shall be entitled to get 9 per cent rate of interest on the enhanced amount from the date of filing the claim petition till the realization of the said enhanced amount. Rest of the terms of the award shall remain unchanged.

The award stands modified as indicated hereinabove.

There shall be no order as to costs.