Karan Singh vs Mandaliya Prabandhak National ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11358 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

										A.F.R.
 
										Reserved
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 443 of 2006
 
Appellant :- Karan Singh
 
Respondent :- Mandaliya Prabandhak National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- N.D. Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Jitendra Kumar,Mangla Prasad Rai,R.P. Ram,S.M.Upadhyay,Shyam Murari Upadhyay,Smt Archana Singh,Sudhir Dixit
 

 
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

1. Heard Shri D.N. Shukla, learned counsel for appellant as well as Ms. Manjima Singh, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for Insurance Company and perused the record.

2. This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the claimant/appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 08.11.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge/M.A.C.T., Court No. 6, Aligarh by which a sum of Rs. 85,000/- along with 6% interest has been awarded as compensation on account of death of deceased.

3. Facts in brief are that an application under Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the claimant/appellant seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- with 12 % interest alleging that on 15.09.2000, deceased Vivek Kumar Singh son of appellant was traveling by bus bearing no. UP14B2331 from Delhi, as it arrived in the limit of police station Gabhana, a truck bearing no. H.N.V.9465 coming from opposite direction (Aligarh) driven rashly and negligently by its driver collided with the bus in which deceased Vivek Kumar Singh sustained injuries and died. F.I.R. in this regard was lodged by one Prem Pal r/o Anoop Sahar as Crime No. 218 of 2000 under Sections 279, 338, 304-A and 427 IPC. Deceased was aged about 21 years and earned Rs. 3500/- by working in Courier Company. Proceedings were contested by truck owner & driver as well as Insurance Company by filing written statement and denying the allegations made by the claimant/appellant.

4. Learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and after appreciating the evidence brought on record by the parties, both oral and documentary held that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the offending vehicles and determined the liability 50-50%. Learned Tribunal recorded the finding on the basis of oral testimony of eye witness P.W. 2 Lakkhi who proved the manner and mode of accident. It was stated by him that he is Chaukidar in the police station concerned and his village is located near place of accident. Accident took place in his presence on 15.09.2000 at about 12-1 o'clock in the night. A bus bearing no. UP14B2331 was coming from the side of Delhi and truck coming from the side of Aligarh collided. The driver of truck was driving it rashly and negligently in which Vivek Kumar Singh s/o Karan Singh aged about 21-22 years died. He informed to the police station. O.P.W.1 Vijaypal Singh, conductor of the bus bearing no. UP14B2331 stated that on 15.09.2000, he was plying the bus from Khurja to Kanpur. At about 2 o'clock in the night near Gabhana bridge, a truck bearing no. H.N.V.9465 driven by its driver rashly and negligently came from the side of Aligarh and collided with the bus causing damages to it and passengers also got injuries. O.P.W. 2 Brijpal, the driver of the bus bearing no. UP14B2331 has also made similar statement. The testimony of P.W. 2, O.P.W.1 & O.P.W.2 was unshakable in cross-examination. After investigation of the case, charge sheet was submitted by the police. This fact was also taken into account by learned Tribunal.

5. On the question of quantum, learned Tribunal found that appellant failed to lead any evidence about income of deceased as Rs. 3500/- per month which he earned from work in Bartiks Courier, so presumed his notional income as Rs. 15,000/-p.a, deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and after applying multiplier of 08 at the age of claimant (father) determined the compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- (eighty thousand) and further awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- funeral expenses. In this manner, a total sum of Rs. 85,000/- was determined as compensation payable to the claimant/appellant.

6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- p.a. and also applied the multiplier on the basis of the age of parents. No amount has been assessed for future prospect, loss of estate, love & affection. Very less amount has been assessed for funeral expenses. In this way award is very meagre. Learned counsel for respondent opposed the above arguments.

7. Considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for Insurance Company and perused the record.

8. The submission of learned counsel for appellant is that notional income of Rs. 15000/- p.a. of deceased as presumed by the tribunal is very meagre. In this regard, it is noteworthy that deceased was unskilled person whose income was not proved. In the case of Mohd. Unus; Vs. Rais; Najnien Begum and others2015(2)TAC526, this court enhanced the notional income of Rs.15000/- to Rs.36000/- p.a. Likewise, in the case of State of Haryana and another Vs. Jasbir Kaur and others (2003)7 SCC 484. Hon'ble the Apex Court has fixed the notional income to be Rs. 3000/- per month where death of deceased aged about 25 years took place in the year 1999. In the present case, incident took place in the year 2000, therefore, as per observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this court in the aforesaid cases, the notional income of deceased be assumed as Rs. 100/- per day i.e. Rs. 3000/- per month which amounts to Rs. 36,000/- p.a.

9. In my considered opinion, the Tribunal cannot be said to be right in presuming the notional income of the deceased Rs. 15000/- p.a. on the place of Rs.36000/- .

10. In the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Tranport Corporation and another, (2009)6SCC 121, it was held that multiplier to be used should be as provided in column 4 of the judgment. Multiplier prescribed for the age group of 21-25 years is 18. It may be relevant to quote para 42 of the said judgment which reads as under:

"We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), 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."

11. The scheme of multiplier has been again affirmed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 Supreme(SC) 1050.

12. In the view of the dictum of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra), the multiplier of 18 should be applied at the age of 21-25 because the age of deceased was between 21-25 years at the time of accident as per record. In this regard the multiplier applied by the learned tribunal seems to be incorrect.

13. So far as the amount to be deducted towards personal expenses in the case of bachelor is concerned, it has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) that for determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the Tribunals and the Courts shall be guided by Paragraphs no. 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma (supra) case. Para 31 deals with the deduction in the case of bachelor. Para 30 to 32 are quoted 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 Trilok Chandra4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 Court, we are of the view 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.

31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non- earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third."

14. In view of the above, deduction in the head of personal expenses of the deceased who was bachelor at the time of accident are to be made to the extent of 50 % on the place 1/3 of the amount of the income.

15. Further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that no compensation has been determined in the head of future prospects. Hon'ble the Apex Court has held in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra) that while determining the income, an addition of 40 % of the established income should be awarded where the deceased being self employed or on the fixed salary was below the age of 40 years and an addition of 25 % where the deceased was between the age of 40-50 years and 10 % where the deceased was between the age of 50-60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

16. Learned tribunal has not determined any amount of compensation in the head of future prospects as provided by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the aforesaid case. In this regard, it has committed the manifest error of law in not determining any amount in future prospects of the deceased.

17. In view of the above the age of the deceased being between 21-25 years at the time of accident, the additional amount of 40 % be added to the income as future prospect.

18. As the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in support of amount for conventional head is concerned, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) that reasonable figure for conventional head namely loss of estate, consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15000/-, 40000/- and 15000/- respectively. The aforesaid amount should be enhanced @ 10 % in every three years.

19. In this way , learned tribunal is not right on the point of making determination of amount for loss of estate and funeral expenses. Since, deceased was unmarried, therefore, no amount in the head of loss of consortium can be given.

20. In view of the above facts and discussions, the compensation to be paid to the claimant/appellant has to be redetermined as under:

S.No.

Heads

Calculation

i

Income

Rs. 3000/- per month

ii

40 % of (i) above to be added as future prospects

(Rs. 3000 + 1200) = Rs. 4200/- per month

iii

50 % of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of deceased

(Rs. 2100/-)

iv

Compensation after multiplier of 18

(2100 x 12 x 18) = 4,53,600/-

v

Loss of Estate

Rs. 15,000/-

vi

Funeral Expenses

Rs. 15000/-

Total compensation awarded

Rs. 4,83,600/-

21. The claimants/appellants shall also be entitled to 7% simple interest as awarded by tribunal on the amount from the date of filing of application till the date of actual payment.

22. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant/appellant is Partly Allowed and award stands modified to the extent directed above and the claimant/appellant shall be entitled for payment of Rs. 483,600/- (four lacs eighty three thousand six hundred) as determined above from the opposite parties no 1 & 2 in the same proportion as directed by the learned tribunal.

23. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 24th November 2021

A. Singh

(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)