Gujarat High Court

Bhupendrabhai Natvarlal Kothari vs Jagatsinh Cheharsinh Jhala on 9 February, 2024

Author: Biren Vaishnav

Bench: Biren Vaishnav

                                                                                      NEUTRAL CITATION




    C/FA/3429/2013                                CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024

                                                                                       undefined




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3429 of 2013

                                  With
                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1353 of 2013

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE

==========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
      see the judgment ?                                                  NO

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                             NO

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
      judgment ?                                                          NO

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
      as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or            NO
      any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
               BHUPENDRABHAI NATVARLAL KOTHARI & 1 other(s)
                                 Versus
                  JAGATSINH CHEHARSINH JHALA & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
NANAVATI ASSOCIATES(1375) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
          and
          HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE

                              Date : 09/02/2024



                                   Page 1 of 25

                                                          Downloaded on : Fri Feb 09 21:30:09 IST 2024
                                                                                       NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/FA/3429/2013                               CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024

                                                                                       undefined




                        CAV JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE)

1. The appellants-original claimants are the father and mother of

the deceased- Vaibhav Bhupendrabhai Kothari (hereinafter to be

referred as "the deceased"), who have preferred the present appeal

against the judgment dated 14.02.2013 passed by the learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short "the Tribunal") in

M.A.C.P. No.678 of 2002, whereby the learned Tribunal has held the

respondents jointly and severally liable to pay sum of Rs.5,69,000/-

with interest at the rate of 7.5 % from the date of filing such claim

petition till its actual realization. The appellants have preferred this

appeal seeking enhancement of the aforesaid award amount.

2. The appellants-original claimants have approached the Tribunal

and have put forward the case i.e. on 09.06.2002 while the deceased

was coming from Gandhinagar to Ahmedabad on his scooter bearing

registration No.GJ-1-SS-4327 and while he had reached Sola

overbridge at around 2:00 p.m., a truck bearing registration No.GJ-12-

U-9593 dashed with the scooter from the rear side, resulting in an

accident. The deceased had sustained serious injuries and

unfortunately expired at the early age of 28 Years. Before the

Tribunal, the original claimants have led various documentary

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3429/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

evidence as well as have examined two witnesses in support of their

case.

3. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Dharmesh Devnani on

behalf of Nanavati Associates for the appellants-original claimants and

learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the respondent No.3-

Insurance Company.

4. From the record, it emerges that this Court vide order dated

05.07.2013 had admitted First Appeal No. 1353 of 2013 preferred by

the Insurance Company, and thereafter, vide order dated 21.12.2013,

First Appeal No.3429 of 2013 preferred by the original claimants was

admitted and directed to be heard with the aforesaid appeal.

5. Learned advocate for the appellants- original claimants had

referred to the relevant observations of the Tribunal with regard to

the determination of income to compute the compensation under the

head of dependency loss. According to the learned advocate, the

Tribunal has overlooked the income tax returns of the deceased,

which otherwise clearly indicates deposit of the tax amount on the

income of Rs.1,20,634/- for the relevant financial year, which is further

substantiated by the certificate issued by the Income Tax Department

in Form 16-A.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3429/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

5.1 According to the learned advocate, the Tribunal has not

considered the evidence of a witness namely Sureshchandra Gandhi,

who had on oath submitted before the Tribunal that the deceased was

working as an assistant with his firm and was earning a stipend of

Rs.15,000/- per month. The certificate issued by the said firm has also

been produced on record at Exh.45. The reliance was also placed on

the evidence of a witness namely Mr. Hasan S. Ujjani, who is the

accountant of Cama Hotels where the deceased had worked for a brief

period. In his evidence, the fact of a sum of Rs.8,460/- being deducted

towards TDS from the income of the deceased from the period of

01.04.2001 to 31.03.2002, has emerged on record. The certificate to

that extent has also been produced and proved in evidence at Exh.43.

It is therefore submitted that substantial evidence has been brought

on record to establish the earning capacity of the deceased at the

time of the accident. However, the learned Tribunal has failed to

appreciate the aforesaid evidence and has determined the income of

the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month by considering the minimum

income criteria prevailing for the survival of an individual, at the time

of the accident.

5.2 At this stage, learned advocate for the appellants has relied

upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3429/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

Malarvizhi & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.

reported in AIR 2020 SC 90, which has also been followed in

subsequent decision in the case of Smt. Anjali & ors. vs Lokendra

Rathod and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683, holding

thereby that the income tax return being a statutory document can be

considered a valid piece of evidence to determine the actual income

of the deceased. Learned advocate had therefore submitted that the

Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased as per

IT returns though filed subsequently, but relate to the assessment

year 2002-03. The said document goes to suggest that the deceased

had earned sum of Rs. 1,20,634/- in that particular assessment year

and the income per month was required to be considered at

Rs.10,052/- per month.

5.3 Learned advocate by referring to the aforesaid decisions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, had further submitted that even otherwise as

per Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, filing of the income tax

return is not mandatory or obligatory, if the income is not taxable in

that particular assessment year. He has further invited our attention

to the fact that the deceased was hardly aged about 28 years at the

time of the accident and he had started earning by engaging with

private firms. In such circumstances, the Tribunal committed serious

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3429/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

error in ignoring such vital document in computing the component of

income.

5.4 Learned advocate had referred to the evidence of the witness

Bhupendrabhai Kothari, who is the father of the deceased and the

original claimant (Exh.30) and has contended that in his deposition it

has emerged that the deceased was holding degree of bachelor of

commerce from Sahjanad College, and thereafter had also cleared

computer course. Though the deceased was engaged in free-lancing

work as well as was engaged in the business of purchasing and selling

shares in the stock exchange. He had further submitted that the

deceased had and was in fact, a qualified computer consultant having

worked as a teacher/instructor in computer classes and as a data

analyst and was also looking after the account's work. The deceased

had also worked as article assistant with a chartered accountant firm

and was receiving stipend from the said firm. The evidence has also

emerged on record that the deceased had worked with Cama Hotels,

where TDS of Rs. 8,460/- was deducted from his income during the

period from 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2002. According to learned Advocate,

the deceased had multiple sources of income and earning more than

what was determined by the tribunal. Learned advocate, therefore,

urged before this Court that merely since the IT returns were filed for

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3429/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

the first time after the date of death, the Tribunal ought not to have

ignored the said document for the purpose of determination of

income of the deceased.

5.5 Learned advocate has relied upon the aforesaid document and

has contended that the income of the deceased was required to be

considered Rs. 1,20,634/- per annum as on the date of the accident i.e.

Rs.10,052/- per month. By referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance

Co. Ltd. and others reported in AIR 2012 SC 2185, he has submitted

that the Tribunal miserably failed in not considering the prospective

increase in the income of the deceased at the rate of 30 % and had

accordingly, urged to consider the prospective increase in income at

the rate of Rs.13,067/- (30% of Rs.10,052/- = 3015+ Rs.10,052/-). He

had further submitted that considering the age of the deceased one-

third of the aforesaid amount was required to be deducted towards

the personal expense i.e. Rs.8,712/- per month (Rs.13,067- Rs.4,355),

which comes to Rs.1,04,544/- per annum. According to the learned

advocate, the Tribunal has rightly applied a multiplier of 17 and has

prayed for a sum of Rs.17,77,248/- under the head of loss of

dependency.

5.6 According to the learned advocate, no error can be found with

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3429/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

the approach of the learned Tribunal while determining the

compensation under the head of love and affection, which is fixed at

the rate of Rs.1 Lakh. Learned advocate had relied upon the relevant

observations made in para 19 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Amrit Bhanushali and others vs. National Insurance

Company and others reported in (2012) 11 SCC 738, with regard to

funeral expenses and other incidental expenses incurred by the

original claimants. Learned advocate had urged that to grant

compensation of an amount of Rs.25,000/- as against the amount

awarded by the Tribunal under the aforesaid head.

5.7 Lastly, the learned advocate had pressed for interest at the rate

of 12% to be considered from the date of the claim petition till the

realization of the enhanced amount of compensation, which may be

arrived at by this Court in the present appeal. He had, therefore, urged

this Court to award a total amount of sum of Rs.33,59,784/-.

5.8 Apart from the various decisions relied on by the learned

advocate for the appellants-original claimants, reference was also

made to the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, for the aspect of deduction in

the case of bachelor and the multiplier adopted while determining

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3429/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

compensation under the head of loss of dependency. The decision of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Bhanushali (supra)

was also made to contend that no interference may be called for

insofar as the contention of the Insurance Company with regard to the

amount of Rs.1 Lakh awarded under the head of love and affection is

concerned. On the aspect of just compensation to be determined on

the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability, the

learned advocate had placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs.

Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

5.9 Lastly, the reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company vs.

Sureshbhai and Others reported in 2006 Law Suit Guj.911, to

contend that the courts are required to take into consideration the

duration for which the claim petitions are kept pending as one of the

criteria in order to apply the current rate of bank of interest on the

award amount.

6. Per Contra, Learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati appearing

for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company had vehemently objected

to the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the original claimants

and had invited our attention to the findings and observations of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3429/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

Tribunal. At the outset, learned advocate had submitted that the

Insurance Company has also preferred appeal and in fact, the amount

awarded, more particularly, under the head of loss of dependency is

required to be re-considered.

6.1 According to learned advocate Mr. Nanavati, no fault can be

found with the approach of the Tribunal in considering the income of

the deceased at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month at the time of the

accident, in absence of any cogent material being brought on record

to establish the income of the deceased. Our attention was also

invited to the relevant observations of the Tribunal while discarding

the evidence of two witnesses examined by the original claimant

before the Tribunal. According to learned advocate Mr. Nanavati, the

witnesses were subjected to cross-examination and it has clearly

emerged on record that though TDS receipt was referred to in the

deposition by the witness. No document was furnished to establish

the fact about the deposit of such tax amount deducted from the

income of the deceased.

6.2 Learned advocate had further submitted that relevant

questions were put in the cross-examination challenging the income

of the deceased at the time of the accident. The only evidence, which

has emerged on record at Exh.51, is the income tax return filed,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3429/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

however, the Tribunal has rightly noticed that the said document was

filed subsequently after the deceased had expired. In fact, it was for

the first time, the income tax return was filed before the department.

In such circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly ignored such document

for the purpose of determination of the income as contended by the

original claimant. He had further submitted that no salary slip or any

appointment letter has been brought on record to establish the fact

that the deceased was engaged in a permanent job at the time of the

accident.

6.3 At this stage, learned advocate has placed on record the

decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court to contend that in

ordinary cases the income tax return certificate can be accepted as a

valid piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of income.

However, the courts are expected to be on guard when the income tax

returns are filed after the date of the accident with an intent to derive

higher compensation. In such cases, the courts are expected to verify

the circumstances like filing of advance tax or income tax return filed

in the previous year to assess the actual income of the deceased.

6.4 In support of his case, learned advocate Mr. Nanavati had relied

upon following decisions:

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3429/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

(1) In the case of Ibrahimbhai Abdulbahi Vora &

1 - Versus Jyotshnaben Rajubhai Amin & 3

delivered in First Appeal No.501 of 1998 and allied

matters on 03.05.2012;

(2) In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.

Nishaben Pankajbhai,M/O Decd. Pankaj Shah & 5

delivered in First Appeal No. 397 of 2004 with

allied matters on 16.08.2012;

(3) In the case of Pushpaben Manubhai

Vaasdevani (l.h. Of Decd. Manubhai Jayantibhai

Vaasdevani) Versus Shantilal Kanjibhai Thanki

delivered in First Appeal No.2757 of 2018 on

01.08.2018;

(4) In the case of Shriram General Insurance

Company Ltd Versus Shanabhai Govindbhai Tadvi

delivered in First Appeal No.2372 of 2014 on

17.07.2018; and

(5) In the case of Kiritbhai Bhogilal Shah vs.

Bhalaji Somaji Vanzara and Ors. Reported in 2010

(3) G.L.H. 26.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3429/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

6.5 In light of the aforesaid legal position, learned advocate for the

Insurance Company has urged this Court to consider actual

salary/income at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month as determined by

the Tribunal. With regard to prospective income, according to the

learned advocate, the Tribunal has committed a serious error by

applying a 50% factor. According to him, considering the age of the

deceased, who was not engaged in a permanent job, the Tribunal

ought to have considered 40% rise in the prospective income of the

deceased, which would come to around Rs. 1200/- per month. He had

further submitted that the deduction was required to be considered

half of the aforesaid amount, which would come to Rs.2100/- i.e. 1/2

of (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1200/-) . Learned advocate had not disputed the

multiplier of 17 adopted by the Tribunal, considering the age of the

deceased as 28 years at the time of the accident. He therefore,

submitted that the award of the Tribunal determining the amount of

Rs.4,59,000/- under the head of loss of dependency is required to be

re-computed as Rs.4,28,400/-.( Rs.2100 ×12= Rs. 25,200/- per annum,

Rs.25,200 × 17= Rs.4,28,400/-).

6.6 With regard to the amount determined under the head of loss

of love and affection, the learned advocate had placed reliance upon

the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3429/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram

reported in AIR ONLINE 2018 SC 1249, to contend that the loss of

filial consortium, as fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in such cases,

is Rs.40,000/- i.e. Rs.80,000/- for both parents. So far as the amount

towards loss of estate is concerned, though it has not been awarded

by the Tribunal, learned advocate had submitted that the original

claimant would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- under the aforesaid head

and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses as per the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi ( supra).

6.7 According to the learned advocate for the Insurance Company,

considering the aforesaid amounts under the different heads, the

original claimants would be entitled to total compensation of sum of

Rs.5,38,400/- as against Rs.5,69,000/- determined by the Tribunal. He,

therefore, prayed before us not to entertain the appeal filed at the

instance of the original claimants and to modify the award in the

appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

6.8 Lastly, the learned advocate for the Insurance Company has

submitted that though interest is awarded at the rate of 7.5 %

considering the fact that the incident relates to the year-2002 as per

the current bank rates prevailing at the time, the Tribunal ought not

to have considered interest at the rate of 6 %.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3429/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

7. We have heard the learned advocates on record for the

respective parties and have perused the impugned award as well as

the original record and proceedings of the Tribunal and have also

looked into the judgments relied upon. At the outset, looking at the

arguments raised by the learned counsel for the insurance company,

there is no challenge made with regard to the involvement of the

offending vehicle or with regard to the issue of negligence. Thus, the

parties have approached in appeal only on the aspect of quantum. The

only question, therefore, which falls for our consideration is Whether

the Tribunal, in the facts of the case, has granted just and adequate

compensation to the claimants?

7.1 Loss of Dependency :

The close reading of the order of the Tribunal while determining

the component of income in assessing the compensation under the

head of loss of dependency, after appreciation of the evidence of the

two witnesses has assigned cogent reasons to disbelieve their version.

The evidence of Bhupendrabhai Kothari, who is the father of the

deceased and the original claimant (Exh.30) has also been taken into

consideration, however, in the absence of any proof of income of the

deceased , the Tribunal has taken notional income of the deceased as

Rs. 3000 per month. Much emphasis is made on the document which is

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3429/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

the income tax returns of the deceased (Exh. 51) filed for A.Y. 2002-

2003 wherein the annual income of the deceased reflected is Rs.

1,20,634/- per annum as on the date of the accident i.e. Rs.10,052/-

per month. The Tribunal has refused to take into account such

evidence noticing the fact that the same has been filed after the

death of the deceased and no returns were filed for previous years.

The legal position as regards the acceptance of income tax returns for

the purpose of determination of income in claims arising out of

accident cases is concerned, is no more res integra. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Malarvizhi & Ors. v. United India

Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2020) 4 SCC 228 held that

income tax returns is a statutory document which can be relied upon

to determine the annual income of the deceased. In the case of

V.Subbulakshmi & Ors. Vs.S. Lakshmi & Anr., (2008) 4 SCC 224 , the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that income tax returns filed after

the date of demise of the victim cannot be considered for the purpose

of computation of compensation. Though the evidence of the father

of the deceased goes to suggest that the deceased was engaged in a

different work establishment and was earning income from different

sources, the various other heads of the income which were not of

permanent nature and in absence of any evidence of proof of income,

has rightly not been considered by the Tribunal while considering the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3429/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

income of the said deceased.

7.2 FUTURE PROSPECTS:

As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsels, the Tribunal has

failed to consider the quantum for future prospect in the

compensation granted under the head of dependency loss. It is a well

settled position of law that in cases of fatal accidents caused by a

motor accident, the claimant is entitled to not just future loss of

income, but also future prospects. It has been reiterated by this Court

in multiple instances that "just compensation" must be interpreted in

such a manner as to place the claimant in the same position as he was

before the accident took place. In light of National Insurance

Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680, the applicable

40% addition of future prospects is required to be considered as

compensation to the Appellant herein.

In Pranay Sethi (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not only

approved the observations made in Sarla Verma (Supra), but also

held as under:

"59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3429/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component."

7.3 Deduction towards personal expense of deceased and

multiplier :

In the fact of the present case, indisputably the deceased was

aged 28 years at the time of accident and was unmarried. The

dependents in the family include both the parents. In such

circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the learned advocate for the

appellant- original claimant, the principle of Sarla Verma ( supra) as

followed in the case of Amrit Bhanushali ( supra) shall be squarely

applicable. The relevant observations needs to be necessary follow in

the present case as well :

"15. The question relating to deduction for 'personal

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3429/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

and living expenses' and selection of multiplier fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. In the said case this Court taking into consideration the decisions in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176; U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chand, (1996)4 SCC 362; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 and Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory, (2004) 2 SCC 473, held as follows:

"(i)Re Question - Deduction for personal and living expenses:

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 Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions.

Having considered several subsequent decisions of this 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,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3429/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

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."

(ii)Re Question - Selection of multiplier

42. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3429/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

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."

17. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation.

18. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra) this Court held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table of the said judgment which starts with an operative multiplier of 18. As the age of the deceased at the time of the death was 26 years, the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. The Tribunal taking into consideration the age of the deceased rightly applied the multiplier of 17 but the High Court committed a serious error by not giving the benefit of multiplier of 17 and bringing it down to the multiplier of 13."

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3429/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

7.4 In light of the aforesaid legal position, in the present case

considering the fact that deceased was survived by his parents, the

deduction is required to be considered half of the aforesaid amount,

which would come to Rs.2100/- i.e. 1/2 of (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1200/-) .

Considering the age of the deceased as 28 years at the time of the

accident, the multiplier of 17 adopted by the Tribunal is confirmed.

The award of the Tribunal determining amount of Rs.4,59,000/- under

the head of loss of dependency is required to be re-computed as

Rs.4,28,400/-.( Rs.2100 ×12= Rs. 25,200/- per annum, Rs.25,200 × 17=

Rs.4,28,400/-).

7.5 Loss of Love and Affection:

It is a case where the Parents have lost the love and affection of

their son. The Loss of love and affection cannot be precisely measured

in terms of money. But the same has to be quantified, taking into

consideration the age of the claimants and decisions on the said

aspect. Both the appellants- original claimants are held entitled to

separate consortium @Rs.40,000/- each in accordance with the

principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd (supra).

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3429/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

7.6 Funeral expenses and loss of estate:

The appellants are also entitled to compensation in the sum of

Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral

expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection.

Therefore, the Court is inclined to award Rs.1,00,000/- under the head

of loss of love and affection.

8. In light of the above mentioned discussion, the Appellants are

held entitled to the following amounts:

               Sr. No.              Head                     Compensation Awarded

                      1.   Income                           Rs. 3,000/- per month

                                                        Rs.1,200 /- (i.e. 40% of the
                      2.   Future Prospects
                                                        income)

Deduction Towards Rs. 2,100/- /- (i.e. 1/2 of

personal expenses Rs.4,200/-)

4. Total Annual Income Rs.25,200/- (Rs.2100× 12]

Rs. 4,28,400/-(i.e. Rs.25,200×

6. Loss of Dependency

17)

7. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-

8. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-

9. Loss of filial Rs. 40,000/- each i.e.

Consortium to each Rs.80,000/-

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3429/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2024