Pavitra Devi & Ors. v. Bhan Singh & Ors.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. S. S. Khurana, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. R. M. Suri, 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 Vinod Kumar. Vide award dated 11.2.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”), a sum of Rs. 3,97,400/- has been awarded along with interest @ 7.5% 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 2.11.2006, Vinod Kumar was going to Village Sanjharpur on his scooter No. HR-36-D-4295. At about 3.30 p.m., when he reached near Sanjharpur mod, a TATA Indica Car bearing registration no. RJ-14CC- 1456, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came and hit the scooter of Vinod Kumar. He sustained serious injuries. He was taken to Birendra Hospital, Rewari and then to Arvind Yadav Hospital, Rewari and thereafter shifted to Soni Hospital, Jaipur where he succumbed to his injuries on

6.11.2006. Criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. Thereafter, the dependents of the deceased Vinod Kumar, filed claim petition which was allowed. However, still dissatisfied with the compensation, they have filed the present appeal impugning the award of the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was 28 years of age at the time of death. It was submitted that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,600/- per month. The FAO No. 254 of 2010 -2- deceased left behind old parents, widow and two minor children. It was submitted that considering the age of the deceased as 28 years, the multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal is not correct, which should have been 17 and not 12 as applied by it. The other submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that considering the dependents left behind by the deceased, the cut applied by the Tribunal on account of personal expenses of the deceased is on higher side, which should have been 1/4th as against 1/3rd. It was also submitted that after the accident on 2.11.2006, Vinod Kumar (since deceased) was first taken to Birendra Hospital, Rewari and then to Arvind Yadav Hospital, Rewari and thereafter shifted to Soni Hospital, Jaipur where he died on 6.11.2006. But the learned Tribunal has only granted a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on account of transportation and other expenses which should have been at least Rs. 50,000/-. It was further submitted that after the accident, Vinod Kumar remained admitted in various hospitals at different places, but the learned Tribunal has not granted any amount on account of attendant. 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. 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 application of multiplier and cut is correct, which does not call for any interference. He further submitted that fair amount has been awarded to the appellants under other heads also. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book. 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. 254 of 2010 -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.

42. 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, age and dependency of the deceased in the present case is not disputed by the learned counsel for the insurance company. The dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the application of multiplier and cut adopted by the learned Tribunal. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment shows that where the number of dependent family members are between four to six, a cut of 1/4th is required to be applied. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the deceased was survived by his widow, two minor children and aged parents. The monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 3,600/- per month and after applying cut of 1/4th, the annual dependency would come out to Rs. 32,400/-. It is admitted case of the parties that the deceased was 28 years of age at the time of accident and considering his age at the time of accident, in terms of Sarla Verma's case (supra), the multiplier of 17 is required to be FAO No. 254 of 2010 -4- applied instead of 12 as applied by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, after applying the multiplier of 17, the amount of compensation comes out to Rs. 5,50,800/-. Considering the fact that Vinod Kumar after the accident was taken to Birendra Hospital, Rewari and then to Arvind Yadav Hospital, Rewari and thereafter to Soni Hospital, Jaipur, the amount of Rs. 2,000/- granted by the learned Tribunal on account of transportation cannot be said to be just and fair. The appellant is granted Rs. 25,000/- more on account of transportation, attendant and other misc. expenses, while the deceased was taken in different hospitals after the accident till his death. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is kept as it is. Accordingly, the total amount of compensation will come out to Rs. 6,27,600/- (5,50,800 + (42,800 + 2,000 + 5,000 + 2000 granted by the Tribunal on account of medical treatment, funeral expenses, loss of consortium and transportation) + 25,000), as against Rs. 3,97,400/- granted by the learned Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall be shared and dealt with in the same manner as directed by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

6.5.2010 vs. ( Rajesh Bindal) Judge