AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is filed by the original claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.4, West Tripura, Agartala. Cross-objection is filed by the insurance company seeking reduction in the compensation awarded.
Brief facts are as under:
One Suman Debnath, aged about 25 years died in a vehicular accident which took place on 19.01.2016. His dependants, being his parents and minor unmarried sister filed Case No. T.S. (MAC) 34 of 2016 before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.51,54,000/- from the owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. Since the appeal and cross objections are confined to the computation of compensation, we may not go into the nature of accident.
Before the Claims Tribunal mother of the deceased was examined. She stated that her son was a carpenter by profession and was earning Rs.13,500/- per month. He was young unmarried boy of 24 years. She, however, had not produced any documentary proof of his income.
Based on the evidence on record, the learned Judge believed the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month, granted 40% increase for future income, deducted one-third for the personal expenditure of the deceased and applied a multiplier of 18 to arrive at the loss of dependency benefits of Rs.18,14,400/-. To this, he added Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- for transportation charges. He thus awarded a total compensation of Rs.18,49,400/-
Counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased's income of Rs.13,500/- should have been accepted. He was a sole-earning member of the family. The Tribunal, therefore, committed an error.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company pointed out that the deceased being a bachelor, the deduction for personal expenditure should have been 50% of his income. The Tribunal has committed an error in deducting only one-third. Counsel further submitted that awarding penal interest @ 12% against normal interest of 9%, if the compensation is not deposited within the prescribed time, is wholly impermissible.
There is no serious dispute about the facts that the deceased was aged about 24 years on the date of accident and that he was engaged as a meson, a skilled carpenter. That being the position, his monthly income can safely be taken at Rs.12,000/-. 40% rise for future would give a figure of Rs.16,800/- per month or Rs.2,01,600/- per year. Applying multiplier of 18 as per the decision of Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the total loss would come to Rs.36,28,800/-.
Though vehemently contended by the counsel for the appellant that deduction of one-third in the present case would be justified, I do not think such a suggestion is inconsonance with the decision of Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra). In the present case, the dependents shown to be are parents and minor unmarried sister. Firstly, there is no evidence that the father was the dependant without his own income. He stated to be about 45 years of age. Even considering a minor sister to be a dependant besides the mother, deviation from the normal rule of deduction of one-half income for the personal expenditure in case of a bachelor deceased, is not justified. Relevant observations of the Supreme Court in the said judgment may be noted:
"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 Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this 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, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceeds six.
Where the deceased was a bachelor and the 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 dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father.
Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.
Under the circumstances, applying the ratio of 50% deduction for personal expenditure of the deceased, loss of dependency benefits come to Rs.18,14,400/- which may be rounded off to Rs.18,15,000/-. To this we may add Rs.70,000/-towards conventional heads such as loss of estate, funeral charges and loss of love and affection. The total compensation payable to the claimants therefore, would come to Rs.18,85,000/-. The direction for payment of penal interest is set aside. In other words, the entire amount as per this modified award would be payable @ simple interest of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till actual payment before the Claims Tribunal.
Entire amount of the compensation with proportionate cost interest shall be deposited before the Claims Tribunal or to the extent of short fall if part amount is already deposited, within 2 (two) months from today. Amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited before this court by the insurance company shall be transmitted to the Claims Tribunal. Upon such deposit, the Claims Tribunal shall invest 70% thereof in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 5 years. Remaining amount of 30% shall be released in favour of the claimants in following proportion:
(i) 60% in favour of the mother i.e. claimant No.1;
(ii) 20% in favour of the father i.e. claimant No.2
(iii) 20% in favour of the sister i.e. claimant No.3.
Upon completion of the period of 5 years of fixed deposit, the amount shall be released in favour of the parents in proportion of 80% in favour of the mother, claimant No.1 and 20% in favour of the father, claimant No.2. Interest accruing on such fixed deposit from time to time shall be paid over to the claimants No.1 and 2 in the same proportion as mentioned above.
Appeal and cross-objection disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
Send down the lower Court records forthwith.