AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. M.R. Shah, J. (Oral)—Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 18.04.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1143/2000 by which the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition preferred by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein - original claimants and has awarded a total sum of Rs. 15,96,900/- towards compensation for the death of deceased Anilbhai, who died in a vehicular accident on 26.02.2000, the original opponent No.3 - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred the present First Appeal.
At the outset it is required to be noted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal has assailed is assailed solely on the ground that while awarding future loss of income the learned Tribunal has materially erred in adding 50% towards rise in income.
It is the case on behalf of the appellant - insurance company that as the deceased at the time of accident was aged 52 years of age, as per the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, nothing was required to be added towards future rise in income.
No other submissions have been made.
Shri Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has tried to oppose the present appeal by submitting that considering the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh and Others v. Rajbir Singh and Others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54, even in the case of the deceased above 50 years, the future rise in income can be considered, however has fairly conceded that in fact it should be to the extent of 15%. He has fairly conceded and has stated at the Bar that as such the claimants requested to consider 15% rise, however by mistake the learned Tribunal has considered it as 50% and has as such committed grave error in adding 50% towards future rise in income, may be by mistake.
No other submissions have been made.
In the reply Shri Dwivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - insurance company has submitted that apart from the fact that the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh (Supra) is referred to the larger Bench, even as per para 9 of the said decision there is no justification in providing addition of 15%. In the present case as the deceased was salaried person, the observation in para 9 shall not be applicable. According to the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, para 9 of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh (Supra) shall be applicable only in the case of those self-employed or on fixed wages where there is normally no age of superannuation.
Heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties at length. As observed herein above, a short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and while awarding future loss of income the learned Tribunal is justified in making addition of 50% towards future rise in income?
6.1. Considering the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and when the deceased at the time of accident was aged 52 years of age and the deceased at the time of accident was a salaried person having age of superannuation, considering the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarlva Verma (Supra), nothing was required to be added towards future rise in income. At this stage it is required to be noted that even according to the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants the learned Tribunal was not justified in adding 50% towards future rise in income. It is the case on behalf of the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that as such instead of 15% as prayed, the learned Tribunal has added 50% towards future rise in income. Much reliance has been placed upon the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh (Supra) in support of the submission that despite the fact that deceased at the time of accident was aged 52 years of age, future rise in income is required to be added to the extent of 15%. However, considering para 9 of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh (Supra), the aforesaid cannot be accepted. In para 9 in the case of Rajesh (Supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"9. In Sarla Verma case, it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those self-employed or on fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15% in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter."
Considering the fact that the deceased at the time of accident was aged 52 years and considering the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), nothing was required to be added towards future rise in income. Under the circumstances, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in adding 50% towards future rise in income while awarding future loss of income. To the aforesaid extent the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified and the present First Appeal is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
6.2. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 11,23,024/- under different heads as under :
Rs. 9,48,024
Loss of income
Rs. 1,00,000
Loss of consortium and love and affection to original applicant No.1
Rs. 50,000
Loss of love and affection and estate to original applicant No.1
Rs. 25,000
Funeral expenses
Rs.11,23,024
Total compensation
In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present First Appeal succeeds in part. Impugned judgment and award dated 18.04.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1143/2000 is hereby modified to the extent and it is held that the original claimants are entitled to Rs. 11,23,024/-.
It is reported that the appellant - insurance company has deposited the amount of compensation, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, with the learned Tribunal. The appellant - insurance company shall be entitled to recover the difference amount of Rs. 4,73,876/- (Rs. 15,96,900 - Rs. 11,23,024) from the original claimants with interest.