AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. S. Sonak, J
Heard Mr. Salil Saudagar for the Appellants and Ms. Christabel Afonso for Respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 23rd May 2012 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mapusa (Tribunal) in Claim Petition No. 5/2011.
Mr. Saudagar submits that the Tribunal has failed to make an addition towards future prospects and award consortium in respect of each of the dependants. He hands in a chart in terms of which the just compensation would work out to Rs. 14,33,000/-and not Rs. 9,90,000/-, as awarded by the Tribunal.
Ms. Afonso submits that the Tribunal has awarded excess compensation towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. She submits that otherwise, there is no error in the computation of the compensation by the Tribunal.
The records show that the insurance company has accepted the impugned award and even paid the compensation in terms of the same. Thus, there can be no serious dispute about the deceased person's annual income and the age.
The Tribunal has correctly determined the deceased's annual income at Rs. 1,26,000/-. However, the Tribunal has failed to make an addition of 40% towards future prospects consistent with the law in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. With this addition, the deceased's annual income will have to be taken at Rs. 1,76,400/-. There is no dispute that deduction of 50% is called for and thus, the annual dependency would come to Rs. 88,200/-.
In terms of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (Smt.) and ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 the correct multiplier in this case is 15, considering the age of the deceased at the time of the accident. The compensation towards dependency would, therefore, come to Rs. 13,23,000/-.
To the above amount, Rs. 15,000/- will have to be added towards loss of estate and another Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/-and Rs. 25,000/- respectively under these heads. These amounts will have to be proportionately scaled down.
Further, towards consortium, the original appellants would be entitled to Rs. 40,000/- each. Thus, the compensation of Rs. 80,000/- is due towards consortium.
Based on the above, just compensation in this case will have to be computed at Rs. 14,33,000/- in place of Rs. 9,90,000/-. There is no case made out for varying the interest awarded by the Tribunal.
Thus, this appeal is allowed and the compensation amount is to be determined at Rs. 14,33,000/- in place of Rs. 9,90,000/-.
The Respondents, including in particular, Respondent No.3-Insurance Company is now directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,43,000/-, together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of presentation of the application for compensation, in this Court within six weeks from today. The Insurance Company must give intimation to the learned Counsel for the Appellants before such deposit is made.
The original claimants are the parents of Appellant No.1(a)-daughter and appellants No.1(b) and 1(c)-daughter/son-in-law.
Mr. Saudagar states that the Appellants left behind no other legal representative and the statement to this effect on oath has been made in the application for bringing on record the said legal representatives. In any case, the Appellants will have to indemnify the Insurance Company in case any further legal representatives turn up to claim compensation. If any legal representative turns up, then, it will be for the Appellants to share this compensation with them.
Accordingly, the Appellant No.1(a) will be entitled to 50% of the compensation amount and Appellant No.1(b) and 1(c) will be entitled to 25% each.
After the compensation amount is deposited, the Appellants to furnish identity documents and bank details so that the Registry can transfer the compensation amount in the above proportion directly in their bank accounts.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order for costs.