Smt. Kamlesh Rani & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellants. Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate, for the Insurance company. Rajesh Bindal J. This appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation on account of death of Arjun Dass. Vide award dated 12.3.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”), a sum of Rs. 4,89,000/-, including Rs. 5,000/- as loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- towards expenses of last rites, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realization. Briefly the facts, as stated in the award of the learned Tribunal, are that on 29.10.1997, Arjun Dass was performing his duties as Driver on Haryana Roadways Bus bearing No. HR-01-4387 and was going from Ambala to Karnal. When the bus reached at some distance from Nilokheri towards Karnal, a truck bearing registration no.

DL-1GA-7162, driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver, came from front side and dashed with the bus. In the accident, both the drivers and many passengers sustained injuries. The matter was reported to the police. The claim petitions filed by the dependents of the deceased and the injured were allowed by the learned Tribunal. Dissatisfied with the award of compensation, the dependents of Arjun Dass, driver of the bus, approached this court for further enhancement. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was 41 years of age at the time of death and was maintaining his family, FAO No. 3797 of 2001 -2- which included his wife, two minor sons and two minor daughters. He was working as driver and his monthly salary at the time of death was Rs. 4,983/-. The multiplier applied by the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased as 41 years, is not correct, which should have been 14 and not 12 as applied by it.

The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that cut applied by the Tribunal as personal expenses of the deceased is on higher side as appellant no. 1 widow and appellants no. 2 to 5 four minor children, were dependent on him, the cut should have been applied @ 1/4th. To support his contention, he relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (6) SCC 121. The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that compensation granted by the learned Tribunal on account of funeral expenses and loss of consortium is on lower side and deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- under each head. It was also submitted that while assessing the compensation, the learned Tribunal has also not granted any compensation keeping in view the future prospectus of the deceased. The prayer is for grant of compensation on that account also.

While not disputing the proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, learned counsel for the Insurance company submitted that considering the age of the deceased, application of multiplier is correct, which does not call for any interference. She submitted that fair amount has been awarded to the appellants. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) laid down certain guide-lines for the purpose of calculation of compensation in the form of determination of dependency and application of multiplier. The relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted below: “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions.

Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view FAO No. 3797 of 2001 -3- 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.

We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176; U.P.SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720), 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, M-16 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.” The salary of the deceased in the present case is not disputed by the learned counsel for the insurance company. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment shows that where the number of dependent family members is between 4 to 6, a cut of 1/4th is required to be applied.

26.5.2010 vs. ( Rajesh Bindal) Judge