Sajjan Singh Choudhary @APPELLANT@Hash Mal Singh

Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 25.07.2017 passed by the Tribunal, seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to grant compensation to the appellant towards future prospects of the deceased. In support of

his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay

Sethi and others AIR 2017 (SC) 4973, wherein it was held as under:-

  “39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectible from Sarla

Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In

paragraphs 30, 31 and 32,  Sarla  Verma  lays  down:-Â

“30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra4, the general

practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this 37 (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 31 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 (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members

is 2 to 3, onefourth (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 exceeds six.

Where the deceased was a bachelor andthe claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as

personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married

in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to

have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary,

brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

Thus even if the deceased is survived byparents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and

iving expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the

deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger nonearning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to

onethird and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.â€​

           x       Â

                                                          x

                                                      Â

           x                                           Â

                      xÂ

                                                                  Â

x

 “ 44. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the claims tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in paragraph 19 of Sarla Verma read with

paragraph 42 of the said judgment. For the sake of completeness, paragraph 42 is extracted below :-

“42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra

and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for

26 to 30 years, M16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years,

that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.â€​

           x       Â

                                                          x

                                                      Â

           x                                           Â

                      xÂ

                                                                  Â

x

 “59.Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude

to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40

years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable.

           x       Â

                                                          x

                                                      Â

           x                                           Â

                      xÂ

                                                                  Â

x

“61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-

(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devishould have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated

in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by

another coordinate Bench.

(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of thedecision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.

(iii) While determining the income, anadditionof 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job

and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was 48 between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was

between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

(iv) In case the deceased was selfemployed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the

age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years

should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

(v) For determination of the multiplicand,the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma

which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be asindicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.

(vii) The age of the deceased should bethe basis for applying the multiplier.

(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads,namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-

respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.â€​

Appellant along with his wife had filed the claim petition, seeking compensation on account of death of their unmarried son in the motorvehicle accident which had

occurred on 25.02.2000 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. Tribunal vide this award dated 25.07.2017 has granted compensation to the claimants to the

tune of Rs.6,93,000/-. Hence, the present appeal for enhancement of compensation amount by the appellant Sajjan Singh Choudhary. So far as claimant Sharda

Choudhary is concerned, she died during the pendency of the claim petition after its remand from this court. Deceased was a student at the time of the accident/his death.

Thus, there was no evidence on record with regard to the income of the deceased. At the relevant time, as per minimum wages fixed by the State, even a skilled worker

was entitled to get about Rs.1,800/- per month. Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/per month.

In these circumstances, the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal does not require any enhancement.

Dismissed.