Sumitra and Others vs Ramesh Chand and Others

Navita Singh, J.—Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. This appeal is preferred against the award dated 22.1.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (Tribunal for short). The appellants were granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,45,600/- and now they have sought enhancement of the same.

The case of the appellants in the claim petition was that the deceased Achhe Lal (husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2) died in a road accident, which occurred on 28.3.1998. On the fateful day at about 4 pm, when the deceased was going from the side of village Sishwan to village Bharrojian, Jeep bearing No. HR-03B-2559 being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and struck him, as a result of which, he suffered serious injuries. He succumbed to his injuries on the spot.

Compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- was claimed alleging that the deceased being labour contractor of brick kiln was earning Rs. 7000/- per month. His age was stated to be 27 years at the relevant time.

Respondent No. 1 did not appear before the Tribunal and he was proceeded against ex parte.

Respondent No. 2 and 3, by way of separate written statements, denied the accident. Respondent No. 3 i.e. insurer of the Jeep, further defended the claim on the ground that respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident.

The Tribunal settled the following issues between the parties:-

Whether the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased? OPP

Whether the deceased died in a motor vehicular accident which took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 while he was driving vehicle No. HR-03B-2559? OPP

If issues No. 1 and 2 are proved, to what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled and from whom of the respondents? OPP

Whether respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence? If so, its effect? OPR

Relief.

Learned counsel for the appellants, without disputing the assessment of income etc. on the basis of which the compensation was computed, submitted that some part of the income should have been added towards future prospects and she further submitted that nothing was awarded under the conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium to the widow, funeral expenses and loss of estate etc.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company controverted the above arguments submitting that the petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act for short) and, therefore, nothing was required to be added towards future aspects. Also there was no provision regarding future aspects at the relevant time.

Regarding future prospects, it was held in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others (2012-3) 167 PLR 803 (SC) that the principle on which future aspects are to be assessed, as was held in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009-3) 155 PLR 22 (SC), could be applied in the case of self employed persons as well. However, in Reshma Kumari and others v. Modem Mohan and another (2013-2) 170 PLR 750 (SC), a larger Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court held at a later point of time than Santosh Devi (supra), that regarding future prospects the principle laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) must apply. Though in the said case, the Hon''ble Apex Court had discussed the point of future prospects relating to claims under both Sections 163-A and 166 of the Act, yet the ruling was that the principle as enunciated in Sarla Verma (supra) should be applied. According to that, nothing is to be awarded towards future aspects to persons who were self employed or had fixed salary without provision of annual increments etc. In such cases, the actual income at the time of death was to be considered and only in rare and exceptional cases, a departure from that rule could be made. There are no such special circumstances so as to create an exception in the instant case.

So far as the conventional heads are concerned, the petition having been filed under Section 163-A of the Act, the provisions made in the Second Schedule under the Act would apply and an amount of Rs. 9500/- is to be added to the compensation already awarded. The amount of compensation will now be Rs. 3,55,100/-. Interest shall be paid on the enhanced amount at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.