The Court dismissed this appeal challenging an award dated 26.4.2001. The appellants sought enhanced compensation for the death of the appellant's relative. The Court held that the Tribunal had already granted sufficient compensation based on minimum wage, and no enhancement was warranted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1 of 6)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 992/2001
Appellant no.4 is minor through his mother/natural guardian Smt. Mumtaz W/o Azad Ali.
All B/c Musalman, R/o Oppo. Banjaronki Masjid hasanpura A Jaipur.
----Appellants-Claimants
Versus
2 A. Sahdev Kumar S/o Baboo Lal through Mukhtar Shri Ameen Khan S/o Shri Chand Khan R/o near Bus stand ward no.6, Azam Nagar, Chaksu District Jaipur.
----Respondents/Non-Claimants
__________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. R.D. Saini
For Respondent no.3 : Ms. Chitra Goyal
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Order
20/03/2018
Appellants have filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 26.4.2001, seeking enhancement of compensation.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has granted compensation to the appellants on a lower side and the same required enhancement. No compensation had been granted towards future prospects of the deceased.
(2 of 6 )
Learned counsel for respondent no.3 has opposed the appeal.
It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and others AIR 2017 (SC) 4973 , wherein it was held as under:-
“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:-
“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.
31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the
(3 of 6 )
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.
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 iving 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 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.”
x x x x
x
“ 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 :-
“42. We therefore hold that
(4 of 6 )
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.”
x x x x x
“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.
x x x x x
“61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(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.
(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.
(5 of 6 )
(iii) While determining the income, an additionof 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 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.
(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.
(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.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(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
(6 of 6 )
amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.”
Appellants had filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of Azad Ali in the motorvehicle accident which had occurred on 5.3.1996. Admittedly, there was no documentary evidence with regard to the income of the deceased and the same was liable to be fixed in terms of the minimum wages fixed by the State. In the year 1996, a daily wager was expected to earn not more than Rs.1,000/- per month vis-à-vis minimum wages fixed by the State. In case, the compensation is worked on the basis of the income of the deceased at Rs.1,000/- per month, the Tribunal has already granted more compensation to the claimants than it would come while calculating the same in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). Tribunal had erred in treating the income of the deceased of Rs.2,500/- per month without there being any material on record to this effect.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground for enhancement of compensation liable to be made to the claimants/appellants is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)J.
Mohita/19
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in granting an higher compensation than what is warranted by the Supreme Court's guidance on fixing income of a daily wager in the absence of documentary evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and othersRelied on¶27
National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and others AIR 2017 (SC) 4973 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohd. Ali
Rahmati
Mumtaz
Sayad Ali
Kahtoon
Aameen Khan
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
