Ganesh Das v. Vinay Kumar Chaubay

Patna High Court MA No.651 of 2016 dt.07-11-2025 herein.

The background facts of the case are that the appellants herein filed claim case No. 137 of 2013 stating that on 11.09.2013, one Munna Kumar @ Mannu Das met with road accident involving one vehicle i.e. bus bearing registration No. BR-05-P-1458 at 6:00 O’clock at Kharanja Chowk, Lalganj, on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver resulting into death of the victim Munna Kumar @ Munna Das on spot. The postmortem of dead body of deceased Munna Kumar @ Mannu Das was conducted and Lalganj P.S. Case No. 183 of 2013 was lodged on 12.09.2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

Further case of the claimants/appellants is that the deceased was twenty years of age at the time of his death and was an educated man earning Rs.10,000/- per month by business ice-cream cultivation. The parents/claimants/appellants were dependent upon his income. The offending bus was insured by Respondent No.3, United Indian Insurance Company Limited vide policy no. 210282/31/12/02/00000527 dated 28.09.2012 which was valid at the time of accident. Patna High Court MA No.651 of 2016 dt.07-11-2025

On notice, the owner and the insurance company appeared, but the driver could not appear despite valid service of notice.

The owner of the vehicle and the insurance company contested the claim petition pleading that there was no negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle (bus). However, admittedly, the vehicle was insured by the insurance company. The quantum of compensation as claimed by the claimants was also contested by the Respondents.

After the trial, the Tribunal found that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and the deceased was 32 years of age at the time of accident and his monthly income was Rs. 4,500/-. It was also found that the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal also found that the Claimants are entitled to compensation from the owner and driver of the vehicle jointly and severally and as the offending vehicle was found to be insured by the Respondent No.3, United India Insurance Company Limited, the learned Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the Claimants, who are the appellants herein. However, no right to recovery has been given to the Insurance Company after payment of the Patna High Court MA No.651 of 2016 dt.07-11-2025 compensation by it to the Claimants and as per statement of both the parties, the Appellants have already received total compensation amount from the Insurance Company and no appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, or by the driver or owner of the vehicle.

As per calculation by the Tribunal, total compensation came to be Rs. 4,41,500/- payable to the appellants. While calculating the compensation amount, learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month. As the deceased was found to be unmarried at the time of accident, his annual income was reduced by 50% towards personal expenses. Finding the deceased to be 32 years of age, multiplier of 16 was applied by learned Tribunal. Under conventional heads of compensation, learned Tribunal granted Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and for loss of parental consortium, Rs.5,000/- was granted in favour of the Claimants/Appellants herein.

It is the Claimants, who have filed the present appeal, being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation.

I heard learned counsel for the Appellants and learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3, United India Insurance Company Ltd. However, nobody is present on behalf Patna High Court MA No.651 of 2016 dt.07-11-2025 of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. owner and driver of the offending bus.

Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that Appellants have no dispute with the finding regarding monthly income of the deceased. However, he submits that the compensation has not been calculated as per law prevailing. He points out that no addition has been made by learned Tribunal to the income of the deceased towards future prospect while calculating a just compensation. Even the quantum of compensation under conventional heads are not in consonance with the law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments.

However, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the award and the Insurance Company has already admittedly paid the total awarded amount to the Claimants/Appellants. The points for determination by this Court

In view of rival submissions of the parties, the following points arise for determination by this Court. (i) Whether there should be any addition to the income of the deceased towards future prospect while calculating the loss of dependency? (ii) Whether the appellants are entitled to get higher quantum of compensation under conventional heads ? Patna High Court MA No.651 of 2016 dt.07-11-2025 (iii) What should be the quantum of just compensation ? Law Regarding Just Compensation

Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, (2009) 2 SCC 770 is a landmark judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in regard to assessment of compensation in cases of death. In this judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down principles to provide uniformity and consistency in awarding compensation. The principles as laid down in Sarla Verma Case (supra) has been subsequently modified and improved by Hon’ble Apex Court in subsequent judgments which are as follows: (i) Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 (ii) Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mandala Yadagari Goud, (2019) 5 SCC 554 (iii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 (iv) Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130

All the aforesaid landmark judgments have been referred to and discussed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 providing complete prevailing law regarding Patna High Court MA No.651 of 2016 dt.07-11-2025 assessment of compensation in cases of death arising out of Motor Vehicle Accident. The relevant paragraphs of Satinder Kaur case (supra) read as follows: “Relevant principles for assessment of compensation in cases of death as evolved by judicial dicta.

11. The criteria which are to be taken into consideration for assessing compensation in the case of death are : (i) the age of the deceased at the time of his death; (ii) the number of dependants left behind by the deceased; and (iii) the income of the deceased at the time of his death.

12. In Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 this Court held that to arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal ought to take into consideration three factors : (SCC p. 132, para 18) (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.

13. In order to provide uniformity and consistency in awarding compensation, the following steps are required to be followed : Sarla Verma case (2009) 6 SCC 121 “Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a Table of multipliers with reference to Patna High Court MA No.651 of 2016 dt.07-11-2025 the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said Table with reference to the age of the deceased. Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the “loss of dependency” to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs 5000 to Rs 10,000 may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5000 to 10,000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also added.” (emphasis supplied) (a) Deduction for personal and living expenses

14. The personal and living expenses of the deceased should be deducted from the income, to arrive at the contribution to the family. In Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121, this Court took the view that it was necessary to standardise the deductions to be made under the head personal and living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, it was held that:

14.1. Where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/3rd if the number of dependant family members is two to three.

14.2. 1/4th if the number of dependant family members is four to six.

14.3. 1/5th if the number of dependant family members exceeds six.

14.4. If the deceased was a bachelor, and the claim was filed by the parents, the deduction would normally be 50% as personal and living expenses of the bachelor. Subject to evidence to the contrary, the father was likely to have his own income, and would not be considered to be a dependant. Hence, the mother alone will be considered to be a dependant. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters of the deceased bachelor would not be considered to be dependants, because they would usually either be independent and earning, or married, or dependant on the father. Thus, even if the Patna High Court MA No.651 of 2016 dt.07-11-2025 deceased was survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant. The deduction towards personal expenses of a bachelor would be 50%, and 50% would be the contribution to the family. 14.5. However, in a case where the family of the bachelor was large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he had a widowed mother, and a large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses could be restricted to 1/3rd, and contribution to the family be taken as 2/3rd.

A three-Judge Bench in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 affirmed the standards fixed in Sarla Verma , (2009) 6 SCC 121 with respect to the deduction for personal and living expenses, and held that these standards must ordinarily be followed, unless a case for departure is made out. The Court held : Reshma Kumari case, (2013) 9 SCC 65 : paras 41-43) “41. The above does provide guidance for the appropriate deduction for personal and living expenses. One must bear in mind that the proportion of a man's net earnings that he saves or spends exclusively for the maintenance of others does not form part of his living expenses but what he spends exclusively on himself does. The percentage of deduction on account of personal and living expenses may vary with reference to the number of dependant members in the family and the personal living expenses of the deceased need not exactly correspond to the number of dependants.

In our view, the standards fixed by this Court in Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121 on the aspect of deduction for personal living expenses in paras 30, 31 and 32 must ordinarily be followed unless a case for departure in the circumstances noted in the preceding para is made out.

In what we have discussed above, we sum up our conclusions as follows: *** 43.6. Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paras 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma 6 SCC 121 subject to the observations made by us in para 41 above.” (emphasis supplied) Patna High Court MA No.651 of 2016 dt.07-11-2025