Allowed

Channo Devi Alias Dhankaur v. Sumer Singh and Ors.

Rajasthan HC24 Jul 2018CMA/1628/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal, modifying the disputed award by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs. 1,99,500 to Rs. 7,46,421 based on higher multiplier and future prospects additions.

What did the court decide?

Modified award enhanced compensation to Rs. 7,46,421, to be invested in Fixed Deposit Receipts with interest paid monthly to the claimant.

Channo Devi Alias Dhankaur Vs Sumer Singh and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

(1 of 6)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1628/2018

¶3

Channo Devi @ Dhankaur W/o Late Shri Nandlal B/c Jat, R/o Sukhmanhedi, Teh. Mundawar, Distt. Alwar Raj.

¶4

----Appellant/Claimant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sumer Singh S/o Shri Madan Lal B/c Jat, R/o Jaguwas, Teh. Behror, Distt. Alwar Raj. Driver Of Vehicle Pick Up No. Rj-32Ga-6154

¶7

Charan Singh S/o Shri Surajbhan B/c Gurjar, R/o Kath Ka Majra, Teh. Behror, Police Station Neemrana, Distt. Alwar Raj. Owner Of Vehicle Pick Up No. Rj-32-Ga-6154

¶8

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Registered Office At Iifco Sadan, Ci, Distt. Centre Saket, New Delhi-110017- Insurer

¶9

----Respondents/Non-Claimants

¶10

For Appellants : Mr. Girish Khandelwal

¶11

For Respondent no.3 : Mr. Ritesh Jain

¶12

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Order

¶13

24/07/2018

¶14

Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 2.2.2018 passed by the Tribunal, seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of ‘5’ while calculating the compensation amount, whereas, multiplier of ‘17’ was liable to be applied as the deceased was aged 26 years at the time of the accident. The income of the deceased has also been taken on a lower side by the Tribunal and compensation has not been granted to the appellant towards loss of future prospects of the deceased. In support of his

¶16

(2 of 6 )

¶17

arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National

¶18

Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and

¶19

others AIR 2017 (SC) 4973 , wherein, it was held as

¶20

under:-

¶21

“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:-

¶22

“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.

¶23

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.

¶24

32. Thus even if the deceased is survived

¶25

(3 of 6 )

¶26

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 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 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.”

¶27

x x x x

¶28

¶29

“ 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 :-

¶30

“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.”

¶31

x x x x x

¶32

“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.

¶33

x x x x x

¶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

¶36

(4 of 6 )

¶37

cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.

¶38

(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.

¶39

(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 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 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.

¶40

(iv) In case the deceased was selfemployed 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.

¶41

(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.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

(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.”

¶45

Learned counsel for respondent no.3 has opposed the

¶46

appeal.

¶47

Appellant had filed the claim petition under Section 166

¶48

(5 of 6 )

¶49

of the Motor-Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of death of her unmarried son Naresh Kumar in the motor-vehicle accident which had occurred on 01.10.2015. Since, the deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of the accident. Hence, multiplier of ‘17’ is liable to be applied to work out the dependency of the claimant.

¶50

It was the case of the appellant that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. In this regard, AW-3 Jeetram was examined by the claimant, who deposed that he owned a car and had employed Naresh Kumar as the driver of the said vehicle and he was paying Rs.10,000/- per month to Naresh Kumar as wages.

¶51

The testimony of AW-3 was rightly disbelieved by the Tribunal as the said witness in his cross-examination had deposed that he was not maintaining any record with regard to the salary paid to the deceased nor had filed any income tax return.

¶52

Hence, income of the deceased was liable to be assessed as per the minimum wages fixed by the State at the relevant time. Thus, the income of the deceased is liable to be taken as Rs.5,122/- per month. Half amount out of the income of the deceased is liable to be deducted towards his personal expenses.

¶53

Thus, the dependency of the claimant comes to Rs.2,561/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.5,22,444/-. Claimant would be further entitled to receive an addition of 40% of the said amount towards future prospects of the deceased and the

¶54

(6 of 6 )

¶55

said amount comes to Rs.2,08,977/-. Claimant would be further entitled to receive Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

¶56

Thus, claimant would be entitled to receive Rs.5,22,444/- + Rs.2,08,977/- + Rs.15,000/- = Rs.7,46,421/- by way of compensation.

¶57

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award dated 2.2.2018, is modified to the extent that the claimant would be entitled to receive Rs.7,46,421/- by way of compensation instead of Rs.1,99,500/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain the same. It is further ordered that the enhanced amount of compensation of the claimant be invested in Fixed Deposit Receipts with some nationalized bank, initially for a period of three years and the interest accrued on the deposit shall be paid to the claimant on monthly basis. Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Alwar, in the interest of the claimant shall invest the amount in Fixed Deposit Receipts in the name of the claimant in some nationalized Bank. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Alwar shall further apprise the claimant regarding the amount which has been granted to her by way of enhancement and the fact that the enhanced amount shall be invested in Fixed Deposit Receipts in some nationalized Bank for her benefit.

¶58

(SABINA)J.

¶59

Mohita/46

Channo Devi Alias Dhankaur v. Sumer Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Channo Devi Alias Dhankaur v. Sumer Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sohan Lal Vs Narendra Alias Nariya and Ors.

Shri Thandi Ram Meena Vs Mohammed Irshad Khan and Ors.

Raju Soni Vs Jitendra Kumar Nainawat and Ors.

Rameshwar Bairwa Vs Sita Ram and Ors.

Bablu Vs Munga Ram Meena

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Kamla Bai