AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.H. Vora, J.—Partly aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27.07.2006 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main),
Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 201 of 2002 u/s 166 of the of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994 (for short, the
''Act''), the appellants (original claimants) are before this Court in an appeal u/s 173 of the Act, questioning the award in asmuch as non-awarding
of compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,84,000/-. As the main contest between the parties is only on the quantum and, more particularly, the
appellants have focused their submissions on the higher side deductions towards personal expenses of the deceased and impermissible deductions
from salary so as to arrive at dependency loss to the claimants while assessing the compensation payable to the appellants (original claimants), it is
not necessary to discuss the other facts in detail.
Submissions on personal deduction:-
Learned advocate Mr. J.V. Japee appearing for the appellants urged that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 1/3rd
amount towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. According to him, the learned Tribunal ought to have made deduction of 1/4th
amount towards personal and living expenses as the claimants are five in number (widow and four children). While assailing the award of the
learned Tribunal in this regard, it is urged that in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , the learned Tribunal ought to have taken into account that the deceased was survived by 5 dependents
and all the dependents were non-earning members at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th amount towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased.
Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Maulik J. Shelat appearing for respondent No. 3 fairly conceded before the Court that the respondent No. 3
has no objection if the standardize deduction as laid down by the Hon''ble Apex in case of Sarla Varma (supra) is applied to the facts of the
present case. Accordingly, the award is required to be suitably modified to the extent of deduction made by the learned Tribunal towards personal
and living expenses of the deceased.
Submissions on deduction from salary:-
There is no dispute that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 45 years as per the age shown in the postmortem note at Exh. 30 and
further, the deceased was working as a Work Assistant in Panchayat Irrigation Sub-Division, Khedbrahma and was earning amount of Rs. 8042/-
monthly. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Japee appearing for the appellants that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in considering
the deduction of Rs. 3050/- consisting Rs. 1000/- towards G.P. Fund, Rs. 50/- towards group insurance and Rs. 2000/- towards
contribution/repayment to the Employees Association. According to his submission, deduction towards G.P. Fund, repayment to the Employees
Association and group insurance, shown in the salary certificate at Exh. 31, cannot be excluded from the income of the deceased. For such
submission, learned advocate Mr. J.V. Japee has relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Shyamwati Sharma
and Others Vs. Karam Singh and Others, . As against this, learned advocate Mr. Maulik Shelat appearing for respondent No. 3 submitted that
any allowances in the nature of personal benefit of the deceased cannot become a part of income of the deceased so as to arrive at the figure of net
income earned by the deceased at the time of accident. In the instant case, the deceased was earning Rs. 1080/- towards personal travelling
allowance and, therefore, the said amount is required to be deducted from the gross salary which, in fact, does not form of part of Rs. 3090/-
along with the amount of Rs. 40/- towards professional tax. In support of such submission, learned advocate Mr. Shelat appearing for respondent
No. 3 relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Divisional Controller GSRTC Vs. Sandhya Sahegal and Others .
Accordingly, total deduction from the salary of the deceased would be Rs. 1080/- towards personal travelling allowance (though not deducted
by the learned Tribunal) and Rs. 40/- towards professional tax. As per the salary slip at Exh. 31, monthly total salary of the deceased was Rs.
8042/- and so, the total deduction would be Rs. 1120/-. Therefore, net salary of the deceased would come to Rs. 6922/- and if this amount is
round figured, the salary of the deceased at the time of accident would be Rs. 7000/- per month. As laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in case
of Sarla Varma (supra), the addition of 30% of salary income is required to be added as the age of the deceased falls in the age group of 40 to 50
years. Accordingly, if the deceased would not have died in the accident, his income would be increased at least to the tune of Rs. 9100/-.
I have heard submissions of both sides with regard to the permissible deductions to be effected both by way of personal expenses and
permissible deduction from the salary so as to arrive at dependency loss to the claimants and net income of the deceased at time of accident. In the
case on hand, the deceased survived by five dependents consisting of wife and four children. It is also found that all the five dependents of the
deceased were non-earning members at the time of accident. After considering the several decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court, the Hon''ble
Apex Court in case of Sarla Varma (supra) standardized the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased in paragraph No. 30
of the judgment which reads as under:-
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-forth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-
fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.
In view of the standardize deduction suggested by the Hon''ble Apex Court, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the
deceased from 1/3rd is required to be scaled down to 1/4th as the number of dependents of the deceased were five at the time of accident. From
net salary of Rs. 9100/-, as held hereinabove, 1/4th amount would have been spent by the deceased towards his personal and living expenses and,
therefore, if 1/4th amount i.e. Rs. 2277/- is deducted, it would come to Rs. 6823/- per month and it will be monthly family dependency and yearly
family dependency would come to Rs. 81,876/-, (6823 X 12).
Admittedly, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 45 years which is apparent from the postmortem note at Exh. 30. The
appropriate multiple would be 14 and not 15 as applied by the learned Tribunal in the instant case Suffice it to refer to the appropriate table
suggested by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma (supra)
As far as deduction effected from the salary to the extent of Rs. 3050/- is concerned, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 3
could not justify the same and keeping in mind the principle enunciated in cases of Shyamwati Sharma (supra) and Divisional Controller
G.S.R.T.C. (supra), deduction of Rs. 1120/- is permissible so as to arrive at net salary of the deceased.
The Court is, therefore, now proceed to calculate the final figure. prospective future salary of the deceased comes to Rs. 9100/- per month.
From the said figure, 1/4th amount (i.e. Rs. 2277/-) is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. After deduction,
amount of income which will be available to the claimants w0ll come to Rs. 6823/- per month (9100-2277).
In case of Sarla Varma (supra), multiple of 14 is suggested and so, the Court also proposed to adopt multiplier of 14 and not 15 as adopted
by the Tribunal. So, the amount of compensation should be determined by adopting 14 multiplier which comes to Rs. 11,46,264/- (6823 X 12 X
14). So far as the amount of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- awarded towards loss of estate and towards funeral charges respectively, there is no
submissions from the either side. Therefore, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs. 11,71,264/-. Thus, the total compensation will
be Rs. 11,71,264/-. After deducting Rs. 9,16,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 2,55,264/-.
Accordingly, I allow the present appeal in part. The appellants will be entitled to the said amount of Rs. 2,55,264/- in addition to what is
already awarded with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition before the learned Tribunal till the date of realization. The
enhanced compensation awarded today, shall be taken by the widow of the deceased exclusively subject to payment of deficit Court fee, if any.
Of course, 40% of the amount shall be paid to the widow by A/c. Payee cheque and rest of the amount will be deposited in F.D.R. for five years.
If any amount is deposited with the Registry of this Court, the same shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal for its disbursement as per modified
award as stated hereinabove. The Record and Proceedings be sent to the learned Tribunal forthwith. The parties to bear their respective cost.