AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Pachhapure
The appellants dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of Subramani in a motor vehicle accident have filed this appeal seeking enhancement. The facts reveal that on 9.2.2009 at about 6.45 p.m.. Subramani was proceeding on his Hero Honda motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA 40 E 943 as a pillion rider and the rider was one Muniraju. When they were proceeding on the proper side of the road, a lorry bearing Reg.No. TN-28 M-5940 came from the opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Hero Honda motor cycle. Subramani sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. He was working as a Mazdoor Lineman and was aged about 34 years at the time of the incident. The appellants being his wife, children and parents claimed compensation for loss of dependency and compensation on conventional heads.
The respondents contested the petition before the Tribunal. During the enquiry, the first appellant was examined as PW.1 and a witness PW.2 and in their evidence the documents Exs.P.1 to P.13 were marked. No evidence was led by the respondents. The Tribunal after hearing the counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the material on record held actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Lorry and considering his income at Rs. 3,500/- and adopting the multiplier of 16, granted Rs. 5,04,000/- as compensation for loss of dependency and a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards the conventional heads. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, they have approached this Court in appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The point that arise for my consideration is:
Whether the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation ? If so to what extent ?
The learned counsel for the appellants relying upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, submits that the future prospects of increase in the salary have not been taken into consideration and therefore, he submits that 1/2 of the salary could have been added to monthly income of the deceased and deducting 1/4 towards the personal expenses, loss of dependency could have been arrived at. As could be seen from the records. Appellant No. 4, the father of the deceased is aged 71 years, whereas, the mother is aged 66 yeaRs. The norms which have been prescribed in the decision referred to supra are general in nature. If the facts are bit different, the Court could take into consideration the said facts and may come to a different conclusion. It is relevant to note that two amongst the applicants are the minor children of the first petitioner, whereas, the other two are the parents aged about 71 and 66 years respectively. So considering this age of the parents, and the probable survival period, I think it may not be proper to consider the personal deductions of 1/4 and I think it just and proper to consider the personal deductions at 1/3 of the income of the deceased.
He was drawing a salary of Rs. 3,575/-, deducting the P.T. of Rs. 150/- his salary would be Rs. 3,425/-. Adding 1/2 of this income, the future loss of income would be Rs. 5,137-50 and deducting 1/3, it would be Rs. 3.425/-. So adopting the multiplier of 16, the net loss of dependency would be Rs. 3,425 x 12 x 16 = 6,57,600-00). The Tribunal has granted compensation on conventional heads at Rs. 60,000/- and though it appears to be liberal, I do not think that it is a ground to interfere with the same. Hence, the appellants will be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 6.57,600/- + 60.000 = 7,17.600/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal has to be modified. In the result, I answer the point in affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed in part, modifying the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 7,17,600-00 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment. The order regarding apportionment of the compensation passed by the Tribunal is maintained.