Smt. Rukmani Sharma & Anr. v. Ram Pal & Ors.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. R.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. ----

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? To be referred to the reporters or not ?

2. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. I.

1. FAO No.1152 of 1999 The appeal is for enhancement of compensation in a case where the deceased was a bachelor, aged 25 years and the claimants were widowed mother and sister of the deceased. The deceased was, at the time of the accident, 24 years of age and was a student of B. Pharma. In the same accident, the first claimant had also lost her husband Radhey Shyam, who was 58 years of age. In the case relating to death of the son, the Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.1,34,475/- and in respect of MACT case No.184 of 1998 for the death of the husband Radhey Shyam, the Tribunal had granted a compensation of FAO No.1152 of 1999 (O&M) - 2 - Rs.3,24,000/-. The appeal in FAO No.1152 of 1999 relates to a case of death of the husband of the first claimant and FAO No.1153 of 1999 relates to a case of death of a son.

2. Before the Tribunal, the evidence let in by the claimants was that Radhey Shyam was an income tax practitioner and filed an income tax return for the year 1993-94 and the UDC from the office of Income tax Inder Singh had been examined as PW1. The relevant documents were exhibits P41 to P44. PW12 Pardeep Kumar was the Assistant Manager of Punjab National Bank, who gave evidence to the effect that he was in the panel of lawyers of their bank and that he was having a lucrative practice. PW14 was a fellow lawyer practising in the same Court and PW15 Laxmi Kant, the daughter, gave evidence to the effect that her father was earning more than Rs.80,000/- per annum. He had a car and was leading a pious life and had no vices. It was stated that a sum of Rs.3 ½ lacs had been spent on the treatment of Radhey Shyam and Rs.70,000/- had been spent on the treatment of Anil Kumar. A Deputy Manger of State Bank of India PW16 was examined to say that the deceased Radhey Shyam was also dealing with the cases of State Bank in Courts. The income tax returns showed his professional expenses for the purchase of periodicals for car and other stationery and showed an income of Rs.73,818/- that included depreciation on the equipment in his office. A balance-sheet showing the expenditure that balances the income was produced and the Tribunal took the total income to Rs.30,895/-. He had also shown an agricultural income of Rs.5,000/- FAO No.1152 of 1999 (O&M) - 3 - which was not taxable. The Tribunal rejected the evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.73,880/- and took the income after deduction of all expenses to be Rs.36,000/-. It reasoned that another son was independent and was himself a professional and only the wife could be treated as dependent.

3. The mode of assessment of income and mode of reckoning of dependents as made by the Tribunal are, in my view, not tenable. On such reckoning, the Tribunal had taken the multiplier of 7. Deductions made for depreciation and equipment cannot be a matter of deduction from the total income. The gross income minus tax alone shall be taken to be the income. I would, therefore, reappraise the assessment by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.74,000/- and provide for 10% of the amount as tax payable and take the income to be Rs.66,600/-. I will make a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses and take the annual contribution to the family at Rs.44,400/-. The appropriate multiplier for a person aged 58 years as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another-2009 ACJ 1298 would be 9 and the amount that will come to Rs.3,99,600/-. I will provide for Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- for loss to estate; and Rs.2,500/- for funeral expenses. In all, the total sum will come to Rs.4,12,100/-. The Tribunal had already accepted the treatment expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,56,000/- and I accept the same. The amount that will become payable would be Rs.5,58,100/-. The Tribunal had already awarded Rs.3,24,000/- and the amount in excess over what has been determined by the Tribunal shall FAO No.1152 of 1999 (O&M) - 4 - bear interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. The amount will be shared between the widow and the daughter in the ratio of 2:1. II. FAO No.1153 of 1999

4. As regards the claim for compensation which is the subject matter in FAO No.1153 of 1999, the deceased was a bachelor aged 24 years, who was still a student. He was doing B. Pharma and the Tribunal had taken note of the fact that he would have earned Rs.1,800/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd took the contribution to the family at Rs.1,200/-. It adopted a multiplier of 7, which, according to the Tribunal, in a case where the husband had also died and even the services of the son not available to the woman, I would take 1/3rd deduction as appropriate and against the assessment of income at Rs.1,800/- per month, I would take the extent of dependence of the son at Rs.1,500/- per month, take the annual contribution at Rs.18,000/-, adopt a multiplier of 11, and that would yield to an amount of Rs.1,98,000/-. I will add Rs.5,000/- towards conventional heads of loss to estate and funeral expenses and take the compensation to Rs.2,03,000/-. The amount will be paid only to the mother of the deceased and the amount in excess of what was determined by the Tribunal shall attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment.

5. Both the appeals are allowed to the above extent.

30.11.2010 sanjeev (K.KANNAN) JUDGE