Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Beena Devi & Others vs Sri Amreek Singh And Others on 23 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No. 607 of 2012
From Judgment and award dated 26.09.2012 passed by,
MACT/3rd Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in
Motor Accident Claim Case No. 121 of 2009.
Smt. Beena Devi & others
..........Appellants
-Versus-
Sri Amreek Singh and others
......Respondents
Present:
Mr. Lalit Belwal, the learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Deepak Rawat, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3-
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited.
Mr. D.C. S. Rawat, the learned counsel for respondent no.4-
United India Insurance Company Limited.
Sri S.K. Mishra, ACJ.
Dates of hearing 21.10.2021 and 23.03.2022 and Judgment: 23.03.2022
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. In this appeal against order, the claimants of
Motor Accident Claim Case No. 121 of 2009 has
assailed the order passed by the learned MACT/ 3rd
Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar on
26.09.2012, awarding a sum of Rs. 24,85,993/-
(Twenty four lakhs eighty five thousand nine hundred
ninety three only) towards compensation. The
appellants have assailed the said order only with
respect to the calculation of compensation.
3. It is not disputed at this stage that on
23.02.2009 at about 4 p.m., late Ganesh Dutt was
proceeding on his scooter bearing no. UA06A-5973
from his home. At that time, on the main road
between Nagla and Kiccha, near Goal Gate (near the
house of Baburam), a heavy vehicle, bearing no.
UA06H-7652 came in a high speed, being driven in
rash and negligent manner by the driver, dashed
against him as a result of which the said Ganesh Dutt
died on the spot. It is also not disputed at this stage
that he was a regular employee of BHEL, Rudrapur.
Thereafter, criminal case was initiated and his body
was put for post mortem examination. The widow, two
children and the father of the deceased filed claim
petition in which opposite parties filed their written
statements. Evidences were led from both the sides.
4. The learned Additional District Judge/MACT
framed the following issues for determination:
1- D;k nq?kZVuk fnukad 23-02-2009 dks le; djhc 4 cts lka; LFkku
iUruxj fdPNk ds chp eq[; ekxZ ij xksy xsVls vkxs ckcwjke ds ?kj ds ikl
ogn Fkkuk iUruxj ftyk Å/ke flag uxj esa Vªd la[;k ;w0,0 06 ,p 7652
ds pkyd }kjk mDr okgu dks rsth o ykijokgh ls pykus ds dkj.k ?kfVr
gqbZ ftlesa vk;h pksVks ds dkj.k x.ks'k nRr dh e`R;q gks x;h ;fn gka rks
izHkko\
2- D;k nq?kZVuk dh frfFk ij iz'uxr Vªd ds pkyd ds ijl oS/k ,oa
izHkkoh ykblsal ugha Fkk ;fn gka rks izHkko\
3- D;k ;kphx.k dksbZ izfrdj dh /kujkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa ;fn
gka rks fdruh /kujkf"k o fdl i{kdkj ls\
4- D;k nq?kZVuk esa fyIr okgu ds ikl oS/k lM+d ijfeV ugha Fkk ;fn gka
rks izHkko\
5. The Tribunal decided issue nos. 1, 2 and 4 in
favour of the petitioner but while deciding issue no. 3
it was held that father of the deceased, not being a
dependent on the deceased, is not entitled to claim
compensation, and further more held that the
multiplier of 13 is applicable and 30% of the increase
in future prospects is admissible and that one-third of
the total income is to be deducted from the income of
the deceased and thus has come to the conclusion
that the applicants are entitled to the compensation
as stated above.
6. In course of hearing, the learned counsel
appearing for both the parties did not dispute the
findings of the learned Trial Judge as far as issue no.
1, 2 and 4 are concerned. However, the learned
counsel for the claimants submitted that calculation of
the income of the deceased has been drawn on the
lower side, and, therefore, they prayed for increase in
the compensation.
7. From the evidence of PW3 Rakesh Kumar,
Accountant, BHEL, Rudrapur, who also proved the
income certificate of the deceased Ganesh Dutt, the
total income of the deceased on the date of his death
i.e. 23.03.2009 is as follows:-
Basic Salary: Rs. 15,500/-
DA @ 12%: Rs. 2,575/-
Perks @ 40%: Rs. 7135/-
HRA 10%: Rs. 1,551/-
PF Contribution: Rs. 2170/-
Total Rs. 28,931/-
8. Total pay of late Ganesh Dutt was Rs. 28,931/-.
In the case of National Insurance Company Limited
vs. Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court took into consideration the
various judgments including Kerala SRTC vs Susama
Thomas and Sarla Dixit vs. Balwant Yadav and laid
down the principle that in view of the imponderables
and uncertainties, it is appropriate to adopt as a rule
of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the
actual salary income of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job
and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is
in the taxable range, the words "actual salary" should
be read as "actual salary less tax"). The addition
should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40
to 50 years.
9. The ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) is
applicable to this case, as the deceased was
permanent employee of BHEL, Rudrapur. So by
adding 30%, i.e Rs. 8400/- the total amount comes to
Rs. 37,000/- per month. Thus, annual income comes
to Rs. 4,48,092/- out of which 10% of income tax
should be reduced which comes to Rs. 44,809/-. In
the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court has also held that where the deceased had
dependents, a deduction should be made from the
total income between one-third to one fifth. It is laid
down in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation,
(2009) 6 SCC 121, which has been followed in the
aforesaid judgment that where the deceased was
married, the deduction towards personal and living
expenses should be one-third (1/3), where the
number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one
fourth (1/4), where the number of dependent family
members is 4 to 6, one-fifth (1/5).
10. In this case, the learned Trial Judge has taken
the dependents to be 3 i.e., widow and two children of
the deceased. However, it is also borne out from the
record that the age of the father of the deceased at
that time was 70 years which in our opinion makes
him dependent on the deceased, as deceased was the
regular employee of a National Public Sector
Undertaking. Hence, the Tribunal committed error in
deducting one-third of the total income. The Tribunal
should have deducted one-fourth of the total income.
So total loss to the Family is Rs. 3,02,463/- only. The
learned Trial Judge has correctly took into
consideration the multiplier of 13, as per the ratio
decided in Sarla Verma case. If the multiplicand of Rs.
3,02,463/- is capitalized into multiplier of 13 the
Result is Rs. 39,32,019/- which is rounded to Rs.
39,32,000/-. The petitioners are also entitled to
reasonable sum on the conventional heads like loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra) has held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.
15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively
for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses. So added to the aforesaid amount a sum of
Rs. 70,000/- should also be awarded. So that total
figure comes to Rs. 40,02,000/-. To make convenient
round upto Rs. 40,00,000/-.
11. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The
compensation awarded is enhanced to Rs.
40,00,000/-. It is apparent from the record that the
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 24,85,993/-.
Therefore, the claimants/appellants are entitled to
receive the differential amount i.e. Rs. 15,14,007/-
from respondent no. 3, i.e., the Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd., along with 6% interest on this
differential amount from the date of presentation of
the appeal . The rest of the award is not disturbed.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
aforesaid differential amount along with the accrued
interest within a period of two months from the date
of pronouncement of this judgment before the
Tribunal. On such deposit, it shall be disbursed among
the claimants in the ratio already decided by the
Tribunal in the impugned order.
12. Lower court record be sent back.
13. Urgent certified copies of this order be provided
as per rules.
(S.K. Mishra, ACJ)
PV
