P.D. Rajan, J.:— This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P.(M.V.) No. 241 of 2004 of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode by the dependants of the deceased. One Peethambaran died in a motor accident on 20.09.2003 and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,74,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy Four Thousand only) with interest and cost. Being aggrieved by that, the claimants preferred this appeal.
2. The accident was not disputed by the respondents in the lower court. Claimants case in the lower court was that, on 20.09.2003 at 2.30 p.m., the deceased was travelling in a mini lorry as a loading and unloading worker, when he reached at the place of occurrence, a bus KL-11/D-6036 driven in a rash and negligent manner hit against the lorry, as a result he sustained serious injuries. Immediately he was removed to hospital, but on the way to hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. The insurers of the bus and lorry admitted the insurance of the vehicles. Others did not contest the matter. Claimants did not adduce any oral evidence, but the documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A4.
3. The measure of compensation in fatal accident case is towards the pecuniary losses, which is to be suffered by the dependents as a result of the death. But the assessment of damages to the dependents is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables. The life expectancy of the deceased and the dependents are the major factors. Secondly, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remaining period of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependents during that period is also relevant. The chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependents may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better job and earned more income also have to be considered by the Tribunal.
4. Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 622 (SC)] held as follows:
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:—
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santhosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) 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 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced herein before.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
5. The deceased was a loading and unloading worker aged 38 years at the time of accident and earning Rs. 4,500/- per month but, the Tribunal took Rs. 2,000/- as his monthly income. In view of Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited [(2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 735], his monthly income is fixed as Rs. 4,000/-. While adding 40% (4,000 × 40%=1600) of the income towards future prospects in view of National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 622 (SC)], the income is Rs. 5,600/-. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to get an amount of Rs. 6,72,000/- (5600 × 12 × 15 × ⅔) towards dependency compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,56,000/- on that head. The balance is Rs. 4,16,000/-. In addition to that, an amount of Rs. 13,000/- is awarded for funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- is awarded for Loss of estate and Rs. 30,000/- is awarded for Loss of consortium. The total enhanced compensation is Rs. 4,74,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Seventy Four Thousand only). Hence the appellants are entitled to get an enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,74,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Seventy Four Thousand only) with 9% interest and proportionate cost, in addition to Rs. 2,74,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy Four Thousand only) awarded by the learned Tribunal. The insurer is directed to satisfy the award within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which it will carry 12% interest from the date of default.
6. M.A.C.A. is disposed of as above.
Comments