Partly allowed

Smt Sushila and Others v. M/S Arora Hospital Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Rajasthan HC15 Mar 2018CMA/1407/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the Tribunal's award of compensation for a motor vehicle accident.准许ed the appeal, increased the compensation to Rs. 5,75,000/- by adopting a multiplier of 13, adding 25% for future prospects, and including specific heads for loss of consortium and funeral expenses, in accordance with the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 5,75,000/- comprising Rs. 4,16,000 for dependency, Rs. 1,04,000 for future prospects, Rs. 40,000 for loss of consortium, and Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses.

Smt Sushila and Others Vs M/S Arora Hospital Pvt… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1407/2014

¶3

Smt. Sushila W/o Late Shri Prem Singh, By Caste Baghel, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Patholi, Thana Shaganj, Agra At Present Sanjay Nagar, Bharatpur

¶4

Sishupal S/o Shri Prem Singh, By Caste Baghel, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Patholi, Thana Shaganj, Agra At Present Sanjay Nagar, Bharatpur

¶5

Bablu S/o Shri Prem Singh, By Caste Baghel, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Patholi, Thana Shaganj, Agra At Present Sanjay Nagar, Bharatpur

¶6

----Appellants/Claimants

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Arora Hospital Pvt. Ltd., R/o Krishna Nagar, Kanni Gurjar Chouraha, P.s. Mathura Gate Bharatpur (Vehicle Owner)

¶9

Shri Mahipal Sharma S/o Damodar Sharma, By Caste Brahmin, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Nagla Bartai Tehsil Distt. Bharatpur (Holder Of Power Of Attorney)

¶10

Hamendra Singh S/o Pratap Singh, R/o Gopalgarh Mohalla, P.s. Mathura Gate, Bharatpur (Vehicle Driver)

¶11

The National Insurance Company Ltd., Division No. 10 Flat No. 101, 106 N-1 B.m.c. House Cannaught Place, New Delhi Tameel Through The National Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Nai Mandi Station Road, Bharatpur

¶12

----Non-Claimants/Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal For Respondent No.4 : Mr. C.M. Sharma

¶14

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶15

Judgment

¶16

15/03/2018

¶17

Appellants have filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 06.11.2013 passed by the Tribunal, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶18

(2 of 6)

¶19

[CMA-1407/2014]

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the

¶21

compensation amount granted by the Tribunal was liable to be enhanced. In support of his arguments learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National

¶22

Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and others AIR 2017 (SC) 4973 , wherein it was held as under:-

¶23

“ 39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, 31 and 32, Sarla Verma lays down:-

¶24

“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 Chandra4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this 37 (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 31 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 dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

¶25

31. 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 dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

¶26

32. 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 the

¶27

(3 of 6)

¶28

[CMA-1407/2014]

¶29

family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger nonearning 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.”

¶30

x x x x x

¶31

“ 44. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the claims tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in paragraph 19 of Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of the said judgment. For the sake of completeness, paragraph 42 is extracted below :-

¶32

“42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”

¶33

“59.Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable.

¶34

“61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-

¶35

(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.

¶36

(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.

¶37

(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a

¶38

(4 of 6)

¶39

[CMA-1407/2014]

¶40

permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was 48 between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

¶41

(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

¶42

(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

¶43

(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.

¶44

(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.

¶45

(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.”

¶46

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the appeal.

¶47

Appellants had filed claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of Prem Singh in the motor vehicle accident. Appellants are the widow and sons of the deceased. As per the post-mortem report, deceased was aged about fifty years, at the time of accident. Hence, the age of the deceased was assessed as fifty years, at the time of accident.

¶48

(5 of 6)

¶49

[CMA-1407/2014]

¶50

Keeping in view the age of the deceased, the relevant multiplier in the present case to work out the dependency of the claimants would be 13.

¶51

Keeping in view the number of claimants one-third out of the income of the deceased was liable to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/- per month in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the said amount has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶52

After deducting one-third of income of the deceased, Tribunal has assessed the dependency of the claimants as Rs. 32,000/- per annum. In the present case, relevant multiplier would be 13, whereas, Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 11. Compensation amount, thus, comes to Rs. 32,000 x 13 = Rs. 4,16,000/-. Claimants would be further entitled to receive an addition of 25% of the said amount towards future prospects of the deceased and the said amount comes to Rs. 1,04,000/-. Claimants would be further entitled to receive Rs. 40,000/towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

¶53

Thus, the total compensation amount comes to Rs. 4,16,000/- + Rs. 1,04,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- = Rs. 5,75,000/-.

¶54

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award dated 06.11.2013 is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to receive Rs. 5,75,000/- by way of compensation instead of Rs. 3,83,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain the same. It is

¶55

(6 of 6)

¶56

[CMA-1407/2014]

¶57

further ordered that the enhanced amount of compensation be kept in monthly income of the claimants in the post office initially, for a period of three years and the interest accrued upon the deposit shall be paid to the claimants on monthly basis as per there share. The Secretary District Legal Services Authority, Bharatpur shall keep the amount in monthly income scheme when the Indian Post Office and shall open separate accounts in the name of each appellant. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Bharatpur shall apprise the appellants regarding the amount which has been granted to them by way of enhancing and the fact that the enhanced amount shall be kept in monthly income scheme in Indian Post Office for their benefit.

¶58

(SABINA),J

¶59

Sudha/79

Smt Sushila and Others v. M/S Arora Hospital Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sushila and Others v. M/S Arora Hospital Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishnu Prajapat Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mahmuda and Ors. Vs Vivek Sukwal and Ors.

Prem Kumar @ Lala Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Kailash@Pappu and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mohammad Ali Vs Amin Khan

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Santosh Devi and Othrs