Asha Verman And Others v. Maharaj Singh And Others

V. Gopala Gowda, J.— Leave granted. These appeals have been filed by the appellants against the final judgment and order dated 22-2-2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Asha Verman v. Maharaj Singh Asha Verman v. Maharaj Singh Misc. Appeal No. 480 of 2008, decided on 22-2-2013 MP, wherein the High Court partly allowed the appeal of the appellants and dismissed2 Review Petition No. 256 of 2013 dated 21-6-2013.

2. The necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case with a view to determine whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation amount as prayed in these appeals?

3. On 27-11-2006, Jhabbu Verman, aged 35 years, was on his way back from Tripuri to Garha (Jabalpur) on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. MP-20-Y-7669 and met with an accident when a truck bearing Registration No. MP-20-GA-2221 being driven by Respondent 1 rashly and negligently collided with the back of his motorcycle. As a result of the same, Jhabbu Verman fell towards his right and the wheel of the vehicle ran over his hands which lead to severe damage to his left hand. Due to the grievous injuries caused in the said accident, he was immediately taken to Mahakaushal College and Hospital and he remained under medical treatment from 28-11-2006, during which period he underwent an operation and plastic surgery twice on his chest and was advised for amputation of his left hand. However, due to the severity of injuries caused to him in the accident, Jhambu Verman died on 8-12-2006.

4. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed on 6-1-2007 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”), at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh by Appellant 1 wife of the deceased, Appellants 2 and 3 minor children of the deceased, Appellants 4 and 5 parents of the deceased, claiming Rs 31,70,000 as compensation for loss caused due to the death of Jhambu Verman.

5. The Tribunal after considering the facts, circumstances and evidence on record of the case on hand, passed an award dated 8-10-2007 by awarding a total compensation of Rs 3,75,500 at an interest rate of 6.5% per annum to the appellants.

6. Aggrieved by the insufficient compensation awarded by the Tribunal in its award, the appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur for enhancement of compensation urging various grounds. The High Court after examining the facts, circumstances and evidence on record enhanced the amount to a total compensation of Rs 5,35,000 under all heads with interest @ 8% per annum The following is the break up of compensation under various heads awarded by the High Court:

(i) Loss of dependency Rs 4,50,000 (ii) Funeral expenses Rs 5000 (iii) Loss of estate Rs 5000 (iv) Loss of consortium Rs 5000 (v) Loss of love and affection Rs 20,000 (vi) Towards pecuniary loss Rs 50,000 Total Rs 5,35,000

7. The appellants filed a review petition before the High Court which was dismissed on 21-6-2013. The appellants have challenged both the orders by filing special leave for enhancement of the compensation amount.

8. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the High Court has wrongly assessed the monthly salary at Rs 3500 per month and failed to appreciate that the deceased was 35 years of age and was working as a technician at Mahakaushal Hospital and that he was getting a salary of Rs 4617 per month. Further, it is contended that the High Court failed to appreciate that Rajnikant Tiwari (PW 3), Occupation Manager, Mahakaushal Hospital, Jabalpur, has stated that the deceased was an operation theatre technician at the Hospital and was getting a salary of Rs 4600 per month. Further, the courts below failed to consider the legal principles laid down by this Court with respect to calculation of future prospects of income of the deceased in Sarla Verma v. DTC Sarla Verma v. DTC, 2009 6 SCC 121, according to which case 50% of the actual salary is to be added to the income of the deceased if he is in a permanent job and below the age of 40 years. Therefore, it is contended that on applying the said principles laid down by this Court in the abovesaid case, the income of the deceased for calculation of loss of dependency should be taken at Rs 6900 [Rs 4600 + 50% of Rs 4600].

9. It is further contended by him that the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-fourth by applying the law laid down in Sarla Verma and not one-third as taken by the courts below.

10. It is further contended by him that the High Court has failed to appreciate that the wife of the deceased spent about Rs 1,40,000 on medical treatment of her husband (deceased) and bills for Rs 1,23,630 for treatment have been produced in support of the same.

11. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned counsel for Respondent 3 Insurance Company that the High Court already enhanced the just and reasonable compensation after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record and therefore, submitted that the appellants are not entitled for further enhancement of compensation as claimed in these appeals.

12. It is further contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company that the High Court has rightly upheld the observation made by the Tribunal that no cogent evidence has been adduced to prove that the deceased was in a permanent job and was getting salary of Rs 4617 per month.

13. Further, it is contended by him that the Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the bills of Rs 1,23,630 as Ext. P-11 alleged to be spent on the treatment of deceased and the same has been duly considered by the High Court. Hence, the impugned judgment does not require interference by this Court.

14. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and also examined the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record.

15. We are of the considered view that the courts below have erred in the calculation of loss of dependency by wrongly ascertaining the income of the deceased at the time of his death. It is clear that the deceased at the time of his death was working in the operation theatre as a technician in the permanent post at the Hospital and was earning Rs 4617 per month (rounded off to Rs 4600). On applying the principles as laid down in Sarla Verma, 50% of the salary must be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects of income, which comes to Rs 6900 per month i.e Rs 82,800 per annum. Deducting 1/4th for personal expenses and applying the appropriate multiplier taking into consideration the age of the deceased at the time of his death as per Sarla Verma, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs 9,93,600 [Rs 82,800 (−) 1/4 − Rs 82,800 16].

16. Further, Rs 1,40,000 was spent by the appellant wife for medical purposes of her husband (deceased) during the period of treatment before his death. Accordingly, we award an amount of Rs 1,40,000 towards medical expenses incurred for the treatment of the deceased.

17. Further, the High Court has erred in awarding only Rs 5000 each towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. We award Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of estate according to the principles laid down in Kalpanaraj v. T.N State Transport Corpn. Kalpanaraj v. T.N State Transport Corpn., 2015 2 SCC 764, Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium as per the principles laid down by this Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, 2013 9 SCC 54.

18. Further, we award Rs 1,00,000 each to the appellant children towards loss of love and affection due to the loss of their father (deceased) as per the decision of this Court in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan, 2013 9 SCC 166. Further, a sum of Rs 50,000 is awarded to each of the appellant parents towards loss of love and affection of their deceased son as per the principles laid down by this Court in M. Mansoor v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. M. Mansoor v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 15 SCC 603

19. Further, the High Court has erred in awarding an interest @ 8% per annum only, instead of 9% per annum on the compensation amount as per the principles laid by this Court in MCD v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Assn. MCD v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Assn., 2011 14 SCC 481 We accordingly award an interest @ 9% p.a on the compensation amount.

20. In the result, the appellant shall be entitled to compensation under the following heads:

1. Loss of dependency Rs 9,93,600 2. Loss of estate Rs 1,00,000 3. Loss of consortium Rs 1,00,000 4. Loss of love and affection to children Rs 2,00,000 5. Funeral expenses Rs 25,000 6. Medical expenses Rs 1,40,000 7. Loss of love and affection to parents Rs 1,00,000 Total Rs 16,58,600

21. Further, though all the appellants are legally entitled for equal share of Rs 1,98,720 (Rs 9,93,600 divided by 5) each out of the compensation awarded towards loss of dependency, however, by keeping in mind the age of the parents of the deceased and also the future educational requirements of the minor children of the deceased, we are of the view that the parents of the deceased shall be entitled to one lakh each, out of the total compensation amount awarded towards loss of dependency and the remaining part of their share (i.e Rs 98,720 each) shall be equally divided and added to the appellant minors' share of compensation. Therefore, the following is the apportionment of the amount awarded towards loss of dependency of the appellants with proportionate interest:

(i) Appellant 1 Rs 1,98,720 (ii) Appellant 2 Rs 2,97,440 (iii) Appellant 3 Rs 2,97,440 (iv) Appellant 4 Rs 1,00,000 (v) Appellant 5 Rs 1,00,000

22. Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellants by the respondent Insurance Company will be Rs 16,58,600 with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment. The respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the sum payable to the appellant children with proportionate interest awarded by this Court in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank as per the preference of Appellant 1.guardian till Appellants 2 and 3 attain majority with the liberty to the mother/guardian to withdraw interest and such amounts for their education, development and welfare by filing the appropriate application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur. The respondent Insurance Company shall either pay the remaining compensation amount by way of demand draft in favour of Appellants 1, 4 and 5 or deposit the same with interest as awarded before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, after deducting the amount already paid to the appellants, if any, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.

23. The appeals are allowed as per the abovesaid directions. No costs.