Taraben Vindochandra Champaneriya vs Chinmay Shaileshbhai Dalwadi

Mr. M.R. Shah, J.(Oral) - Admit. Shri Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent no.3 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties and dispute involved in the present appeal is in a narrow compass, present appeal is taken up for final hearing today.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Narmada at Rajpipala passed in MACP No. 223 of 2013, by which, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition and has awarded a total sum of Rs.11,18,800/- ( after deducting 50% towards contributory negligent of the deceased as such awarded Rs. 5,59,400), original claimants have preferred present First Appeal.

That in a vehicular accident which occurred on 28.10.2013 the deceased Vinodchandra Ramanlal Champaneriya died. That at the time of accident the deceased was serving in the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Rajpipala as a Bit Guard and was receiving salary/income at Rs. 27,223/- per month. That at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 53 years of age.

3.1. That on appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal has held the deceased contributory negligent to the extent of 50%. That considering the salary certificate on record, the leaned Tribunal has considered salary/income of the deceased at Rs. 27,223/- per month and after deducting 10% towards income tax and Rs.200/per month towards professional taxes, learned Tribunal has assessed income at Rs.24,300/- per month for a period of four and half years i.e. till his retirement and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month for next four and half years. That thereafter, after deducting ⅓ towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 9, the learned Tribunal has determined the future loss of income at Rs.10,18,800/. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal has awarded a further sum of Rs. 25,000/- for funeral charges; Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the learned Tribunal has determined compensation at Rs. 11,18,800/- and after deducting 50% towards contributory negligent of the deceased, by impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,59,400/- with 9% interest thereon from the date of claim petition till its realization.

3.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the original claimants have preferred present First Appeal requesting to enhance the amount of compensation.

Shri Mohsin Hakim, learned advocate for the appellants original claimants has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 10,18,800/- towards loss of dependency.

4.1. It is submitted that at the time of accident the salary income of the deceased was at Rs. 27,223/-. It is submitted that after deduction of income tax at 10% and after making deduction of professional tax income of the deceased for the purpose of future loss of income is required to be considered as 23,300/per month and thereafter after deducting ⅓ towards personal expenses of the deceased applying multiplier of 11, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded future rise of income.

4.2. It is submitted that in the present case the learned Tribunal has adopted the split income and multiplier method which has not been approved by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. It is submitted that as per the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, deceased was aged 53 years of age, future loss of income was required to be awarded considering the income of the deceased at the time of accident i.e. 27223/- per month ( Rs. 24,300/- after income tax and professional tax).

4.3. It is submitted that however in the present case, the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 24,300/- per month for the period of four and half years only and thereafter for the rest four and half years at the rate of 4000/- per month which cannot be sustained.

4.4. It is further submitted that therefore, considering the loss of dependency at Rs. 16,200/- per month i.e. Rs. 1,94,400/- per annum and applying multiplier of 11, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 21,38,400/- .

4.5. It is further submitted by Shri Hakim, learned advocate for the appellants that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 25,000/- only towards loss of estate and Rs. 50,000/- only for loss of consortium. It is submitted that as per the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandhya Rani Dahbarma v. The National Insurance Company Limited rendered in Civil Appeal No. 9194 of 2016, the claimants shall be entitled to at least Rs. 1 lakh towards loss of estate and Rs. 1 lakh for loss of consortium. He has fairly conceded that the claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 5,000/- only towards funeral expenses.

Making above submissions and relying above decisions, it is requested to allow the present appeal and modify the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal.

Shri Thomas, learned advocate has appeared for Shri Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent no.3 Insurance Company. Initially, Shri Thomas, learned advocate for the respondent Insurance Company has tried to support the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. However, considering the fact that while awarding future loss of income, the learned Tribunal has adopted the split income and multiplier method which has not been approved by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. He has requested to pass appropriate order and award just compensation.

Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in awarding future loss of income adopting split income and multiplier method, cannot be sustained. While awarding future loss of income, adopting split income and multiplier method has not been approved by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of K.B.Madhusudhan And others v. Administrative Officer and Another reported in (2011) 4 SCC 689 as well as decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Saraladevi v. Divisional Manager, M/s. Royal Sundearam Aliance Ins. Co. Ltd reported in 2014(9) Scale 431. In the present case, while awarding future loss of income, the learned Tribunal adopting split income and multiplier method has considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 24,300/- per month for a period of four and half years i.e. till deceased attained the age of superannuation and four the rest four and half years (applying multiplier 9) has assessed and considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 4000/- per month, which cannot be sustained. As per the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) as well as even decision in the case of K.B.Madhusudhan And others (supra) while awarding future loss of income, income of the deceased at the time of accident is required to be considered and thereafter after permissible deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased and making deduction of income tax and professional tax and after applying multiplier as mentioned in para 42 of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), future loss of income is required to be determined. Under the circumstances, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 10,18,800/- towards future loss of income on adopting split income and multiplier method. Deceased at the time of accident was having salary income at Rs.27,223/- per month. After making deduction of 10% income tax and the professional tax at Rs. 200/- per month, the actual income of the deceased for the purpose of awarding future loss of income can be considered at Rs. 24,300/- per month. After deducting ⅓ towards personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 16,200/- per month. As the deceased was aged 53 years of age, nothing is required to be added towards future rise in income. As the deceased was aged 53 years of age as per the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) multiplier of 11 is required to be applied. Under the circumstances, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.21,38,400/- .

The original claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 1 lakh for loss of estate and Rs. 1 lakh for loss of consortium. The original claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, total compensation would come to Rs. 23,43,400/- and after deducting 50% towards contributory negligence of the deceased, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 11,71,700/- with 9% interest thereon. To the aforesaid extent, impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent and present appeal is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby modified and it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to total sum of Rs. 11,71,700/- with 9% interest thereon from the date of application till its realization. No costs.