Jayanti Rawat & Anr. v. Roshan Lal Kochar & Anr.

appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 20.12.2013.

Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

The Tribunal had awarded the following compensation : Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1 2 3 4 Notional income Annual income Multiplier of 13 Rs.6,000/- [Rs.6,000 x 12] = Rs.72,000/- [Rs.72,000/- x 13] = Rs.9,36,000/- Funeral expenses and last Rs.25,000/- JITENDER KUMAR 2024.11.28 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh FAO-4287-2014 -2- 5 Loss of love and affection Rs.75,000/- Total Compensation Rs.10,36,000/- Interest

7.5% per annum

Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that the deceased in the present case was a young boy of 18 years and was a student of 10+2 (Commerce Stream) in Sri Guru Gobind Singh Senior Secondary School, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh and had a very bright future ahead. However, the Tribunal while computing his notional income had assessed the same as Rs.6,000/- per month. It is further the contention that no addition has been made towards loss of future prospectus and that a multiplier of '13' has wrongly been applied by the Tribunal. The deceased in the present case was 18 years of age and hence, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], an addition of 40% ought to have been made towards loss of future prospects and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs.

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

Heard. In the present case the deceased was a student of 10+2 at the time of the accident. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bishnupriya Panda (supra) had taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.50,000/- per month; in the case of Arjun Kumar Aggarwal (supra) had taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.29,166/- per month and in the case of Kandasami (supra) had taken the notional income as JITENDER KUMAR 2024.11.28 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh FAO-4287-2014 -4- Rs.25,000/- per month. Taking a conservative estimate, as the date of the accident was 03.09.2012, the notional income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, no amount has been awarded towards future prospects. The deceased in the present case was 18 years of age and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), an addition of 40% ought to have been made. The Tribunal has wrongly applied a multiplier of ‘13’, whereas as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) a multiplier of ‘18’ would be applicable. Further, since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% deduction would be applicable as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bishnupriya Panda (supra) and Kandasami (supra). Further, the amount awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is not as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra) and the claimant-appellants would be entitled to Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses and the claimant- appellant would also be entitled to Rs.48,000/- each (Rs.40,000+20% increase) towards loss of filial consortium.

Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under : Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1 2 3 Notional income Rs.15,000/- Annual income [Rs.15,000 x 12] = Rs.1,80,000/- Deduction 50% [Rs.1,80,000 – 90,000] = Rs.90,000/- JITENDER KUMAR 2024.11.28 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh FAO-4287-2014 -5- 4 5 6 7 8 Future prospects @ 40% Multiplier 18 Loss of estate [Rs.90,000 + 36,000/-] = Rs.1,26,000/- [Rs.1,26,000 x 18] = Rs.22,68,000/- Rs.18,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/- Loss of Consortium : (i) Filial Rs.1,44,000/- [Rs.48000 x 3] Total Compensation Rs.24,48,000/-

Appellant No.2 i.e. the father of the deceased has died during pendency of the present appeal and consequently his daughters i.e. appellant Nos.2(ii) to 2(iii) were impleaded as his legal representatives vide order dated 12.01.2023. However, in the absence of any evidence they, being the married sisters of the deceased, cannot be considered as dependents and would be entitled to only the loss of filial consortium in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Anand Pal & Ors. [2023(4) PLR 380].

The amount in excess of and over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.