Allahabad High Court
Smt. Maya Devi And Others vs Sunil Kumar And Another on 5 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 432
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. 1 First Appeal From Order No. 3409 of 2010. Smt. Maya Devi & others ... Appellants. versus Sunil Kumar & another ... Respondents. Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri M.N. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Archit Mehrotra, Advocate holding brief of Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
2. This first appeal from order is directed against the award dated 19th August, 2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar allowing the compensation of the petitioners-claimant raised vide claim petition no. 338 of 2008.
3. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that on the point of determination of compensation, the Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the legal authorities on contemporary law governing the calculation of compensation in cases of motor accident claims.
4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the husband of appellant no. 1-late Sarju Lal, who is survived by as many as seven dependents (widow, mother and five minor children) suffered the fatal accident on 6th of February, 2008 while he was hit by a tempo in the morning hours at around 9:30 a.m. Sarju Lal was immediately taken to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on 12th February, 2008. The claim petition was preferred and as many as four issues were framed. Regarding other three issues, there is no issue between the parties as the Insurance Company has not come up to file any appeal against the award. Regarding issue no. 4, the grievance of the appellants is that the Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the income of the appellants and has wrongly fixed Rs. 6,000/- as an average income. He has placed reliance upon several authorities in this regard particularly (2015) 3 SCC 590, Smt. Neeta w/o Kallappa Kadolkar & Ors. vs. The Div. Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapr.
5. It has been further argued that the deduction of personal expenses of the appellants has also been wrongly calculated as 1/3 whereas it should have been 1/5 as there were five minor children and they can be taken as 2 and 1/2 and the wife and mother of the decease being major. It has been further argued that the prospective income has also not been assessed and no compensation has been awarded to that count and 6% of the interest is also not sufficient enough as has been ordered by the Tribunal.
6. Per contra, counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has justified the order impugned and submits that in the facts of the case, the average income of the deceased was correctly assessed. He submits that no evidence has been led by the claimant in respect of the income of the deceased so as to come to a definite conclusion on the question of future prospective income. It has been argued by learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that the legal position has come to be changed only later on and would not be applied retrospectively on the accident is of the year 2008. On the question of interest, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company submits that the insurance has been genuinely assigned as 6%.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, we find that on the issue no. 4, the Court should have taken pragmatic view in the light of the fact that there were five minor children in the family.
8. Coming to the question of income of the deceased, who was a self employed person and was doing business of purchase and sale of buffalo, the tribunal has applied the rule of Rs. 100/- per day as an income as was held in the case of Laxmi Devi vs. Mohammad Tabbar and anothers, 2008 (12) SCC 165. The Court in the case of Laxmi Devi vide paragraph-4 upheld the order of the High Court where the notional income of the deceased was assessed as Rs. 100/- per day being an unskilled labourer on the ground that it was held by the high court to be a labour charge in those days and this is how the monthly income was assessed to be Rs. 3,000/- and yearly income as Rs. 36,000/-.
9. However, later on in the case of Chameli Devi & others vs. Jivrail Mian & others decided by the Apex Court on 4th September, 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 7004 of 2019, where the deceased was a carpenter the notional income was assess as Rs. 200/- per day. In the case of case Chameli Devi it is held that keeping in view the fact that the accident took place in 2001 and the deceased was a carpenter, it would not be unjustified to assess his income at Rs. 200/- per day. It is true that carpenter may not get work every day, hence, we assess the income at Rs. 5,000/-.
10. One, who meets a fatal accident while on board a vehicle becomes entitled to a third party claim. It is a statutory claim for compensation to those who have suffered the loss of their bread winner. In such a situation there arises question of quantum of compensation to be paid. All the factors that contribute to the quantum of compensation are basically borne on income of the deceased. While a professional and employed person may give details of earning but those who are self employed may not be having this kind of statistics in black and white. In India still people do not prefer banking system and both in urban, semi urban and rural areas life goes on with daily cash transactions. Earning in cash, expenditure met and, if money, in case saved is kept for the other day and this is how saved money keeps adding everyday to meet sudden requirement. Ladies are often found keeping money in cash. In recent past when government demonetized currency note of Rs. 1000 and also of Rs. 500, we have seen how even in rural and semi urban areas people lined up before the bank to exchange their currency notes. So all this leads to one conclusion that in majority, family is survived on daily earning. Now, if a deceased did not have the record of his earning, it does not mean that he had no earning. A deceased survived by six members in a family will lead to inevitable presumption that he being the sole bread winner, was earning sufficiently for the survival of his dependents in the family. There is always a presumption, a valid enough, that one leads a reasonably respected life unless of course, he has criminal antecedents in cases of theft, snatching or dacoity etc. Every citizen enjoys a self esteem and so presumption has to be that he lives a respectable life though such a presumption is rebuttable. So unless any evidence is led to the contrary, it may be presumed that every family in India leads a reasonably happy and respectable life. If a person has met an accidental death and is survived by dependents, and has no record of income, it would be quite inhuman to presume that he had no income and so his family was leading a beggars life. It is a slur upon fellow citizen and no civilized society would approve it. So in our ultimate conclusion that we arrive at, is that even in the absence of record of income, unless and until proved to the contrary there has to be a presumption that breadwinner of a family was earning sufficiently enough for the survival of his family.
11. A family has lost its bread winner and the resultant trauma it faces cannot be visualized by others. It may have catastrophic impact on future prospects of minor children. They may not get proper education, medical care in the absence of adequate financial resources and they may suffer from malnutrition more especially in cases where bread winner was self employed. Thus a child, who could have become a well established person of good repute after attaining good education, may not attain even status of a person, who could manage even two meals a day and worse is a case when a self employed is survived by five minor children, as the case in hand is.
12. Now the question would be what should be an average income of a person to lead a reasonably good and respected life. In our considered opinion it should depend upon the size of the family and place where he lives. It will all depend upon the social economic condition of the area where he lives in. Broad classification could be urban, semi urban and rural areas.
13. In India, in present time, both in rural and urban areas more or less basic needs to sustain life are same. Two meals a day means not less that Rs. 50/- for a person to lead a reasonably good life looking to the various factors that are taken into consideration to calculate per capita income in the country. Children we keep at par with adult on the ground that they need more nutritious food because they are often prone to various health problems due to malnutrition, and the medical expenses would go beyond imagination and in case of absence of enough financial source they lead to a crippled life.
14. Apart from daily bread and butter a person needs medical expenses and at least minimum Rs. 50 per head for two young couple a month and at least Rs. 100/- for aged couple. Children need more medical care and so each children may require at least Rs. 100/- per month.
15. So a family of two persons (adult) would require Rs. 200/- daily for two meals and Rs. 100/- at least towards medical treatment. It leads to an average monthly Rs. 6000/- + 100/-= Rs. 6,100/- where family is two adult and two children it would come to Rs. 6,300/-.
16. The above calculation is based upon average expenses incurred reasonably upon every family including adult/major and minor equally and medical expenses may very. In order to make it reasonable we keep it Rs. 200/- per family of four and Rs. 500/- per family of four and it will increase Rs. 50/- on an average per person with every increase of member in a family.
17. This above calculation is based on our assessment qua the daily expenditure that a human being incurs for its sustenance but one should not loose sight of a fact that in India there is still not enough education in semi urban and rural areas regarding population control as emotions still prevail over logic and every family by and large consists of not only aged parents but 3-4 children as dependents. In such a situation, therefore, if every increase of number in the family it results in increase of assessment of income, it could go beyond the prescribed minimum wage as it would be dependent upon the family size. A person of whose, who has not left behind any statistics of his income, cannot be presumed to be earning more than minimum wage and, therefore, it is needed to put a ceiling upon the income at par with a minimum wage while making assessment for the purposes of computation of compensation. The minimum wage has been notified by the Central Government from time to time. If a person's employment is not recorded and he is doing work of a labour, it would be more appropriate to consider the notification issued from time to time. The minimum wage is determined taking into account various considerations and the five important considerations (vide report of Expert Committee, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, January, 2019) are:-
"a) the standard working class family includes a wife and two children apart from the earning worker, an equivalent of three adult consumption units;
b) a net intake of 2,700 calorie per day per consumption unit, as recommended in 1948 by Dr. Wallace Aykroyd, first director of the Department of Nutrition at the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO);
c) clothing requirements of 72 yeards (6.5 metres) per year per family;
d) a minimum housing rent charged by the government for low-income groups; and
e) fuel, lighting and other miscellaneous items of expenditure to constitute 20 per cent of the total minimum wage."
18. The Apex Court in a number of cases and more importantly in a celebrated judgment in the case of Peoples Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India, AIR 1982 (SC) 1473 had observed that no industry has a right to exist unless it is able to pay its workmen at least a bare minimum wage and which are determined by applying principle of subsistence minimum enough to ensure sustenance of workers. It is in the light of this philosophy that concept of minimum wage was held to be a worker's legal right. The 7th pay commission had accordingly expressed its opinion that the need based norms would be calculated on the basis of the cost of food, clothing and detergent products using prices from labour bureau Shimla and raising presumption that the government does not have any unskilled staff provided for additional premium of 25% to count for skilled factor. All this shows that only anxiety that a human life not only deserves respected living but is presumed to be having a respected living. So in our considered opinion even in the absence of any income details of a person, who has met a fatal accident and is survived by dependents, the Court should follow the rule of minimum wage. The worker could be skilled or unskilled, the area could be industrial or non industrial, applying the law of averages the minimum wage standard should be made a standard for computing notionally the average monthly income of the deceased.
19. The Ministry of Labour and Employment has applied certain methodology for fixing notional minimum wage and the different minimum wages have been notified for different sectors. Seven sectors have been defined like agriculture (unskilled) with a minimum INR 360/- minerals and mines (unskilled) with INR 453/-, construction, maintenance and laydown (unskilled) INR 503/-, sweeping and cleaning with INR 503, watch and ward (i) without arms 656/- (ii) with arms 732/- and loading and unloading sector INR 503/- and stone mine sector with different minimum wages between INR 406/- and 326/- in cases of excavation and removal and between INR 2494/- and 1027/- for stone breaking or stone crushing. Those, who are working in well organized sectors, their muster role is prepared and the names are recorded but in agricultural and sweeping and cleaning sector, there would be large number of cases where there is no recorded entry of the workers and the labourers while on field or off the field and in such circumstances, therefore, it would be difficult to get the exact statistics of the earning. Law of averaging is well proved and widely acclaimed mathematical technique to reach out to a kind of reasonable and workable statistically arrived an analytical assessment and, therefore, applying the law, we calculate the average minimum wage prescribed for agricultural unskilled and sweeping and cleaning sector which is 360 and 504 respectively and that comes to 431.5 and rounding of last denomination we make it 432. Since, it could be the case of organized sector one may not get work every day and mostly it happens that out of 30 days one gets work between 20-25 days on an average so we take it that a person, who is self-employed gets work and pay at par with a minimum wages for 20 days. The average, therefore comes to 432 x 20=INR 8640/- rounding off the same would come to INR 8600 which according to us, should be the minimum average income of an individual in present time. The State Government in Uttar Pradesh has notified on December 17, 2018 the minimum wage in the unskilled sector to be around Rs. 200/-per day which according to us by any standard is not acceptable, if a family consists of more than four persons and there is only one breadwinner in the family. We have already discussed above in detail about the basic requirements of two meals a day and in addition thereto the medical expenses. We have not discussed education and other important aspects where the expenditure is incurred. Since we are more concern for minimum requirements for survival, we fail to understand how a family of four can survive at Rs. 200/- per day in modern times.
20. In our view in a dynamic society, truly characterized with good governance and responsive and value based administration, the society warrants that such assessments of economic prosperity or otherwise of any household be credible, specially from the point of view of suitability of compensation measures. And, therefore, dearness must be factored in when such compensatory measures are undertaken. Relying routinely upon the older provisions and norms may not beat the misery of the victim and the bereaved ones.
21. In the case of Laxmi Devi, the victim Rajendra Singh had died on 12.4.2004 and the high court fixed Rs. 100/- as per day income which was uphold by the supreme court whereas in the case of Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121 the issue was not the average monthly income. In this case the incident had taken place in the year 2008. The Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi has referred to Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Limited (2012) 6 SCC 421.
22. In Pranay Sethi, the Apex Court discussed the future prospects of actual salary to be added with different percentages at different age slab. However what should be the actual salary, was left to be dependent upon various factors. As we have discussed above, the various factors in determining the minimum wage and have raised presumption that the deceased was living a reasonably good life for the sustenance on economic front to meet the basic requirements and at least two meals a day for each of the member of the family. We consider it appropriate to presume that a person must be having daily income at par with minimum wage of Rs. 432/- in present time but we may further observe that a family of four may survive upon a daily earning of Rs. 432/- but if it consists of more members, one may have many more sources to earn enough for sustenance of family. So we are of the considered opinion that in present time average notional income per day for a family of four should be 432/- and 10% should be increased with every increase of member in the family as dependent.
23. However, since in the case in hand accident is of the year 2008, considering the number of dependents, who survived upon the sole breadwinner, the deceased, we take Rs. 200/-as his per day income notionally and if he earned for 25 days only, his monthly income must have been Rs. 5,000/-
24. Now coming to the other aspect of the matter regarding deduction on account of personal expenses, future prospects, loss of estate, loss of consortium and other conventional and traditional income, the law is now come to be crystallized in the judgment of the constitution bench in the case of National Insurance Company Limited. vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680. The constitution bench vide paragraph-10 has held thus:-
"10. Now coming to the aspect of future prospects and claim of compensation in that head for those who are self employed. This issue is no more res integra. The Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) vide paras 56 and 57 has held thus:
"56. The seminal issue is the fixation of future prospects in cases of deceased who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. Sarla Verma (supra) has carved out an exception permitting the claimants to bring materials on record to get the benefit of addition of future prospects. It has not, per se, allowed any future prospects in respect of the said category.
57. Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are disposed to think when we accept the principle of standardization, there is really no rationale not to apply the said principle to the self-employed or a person who is on a fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty. But to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. It is because the criterion of distinction between the two in that event would be certainty on the one hand and staticness on the other. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect a self-employed person; and that apart there is always an incessant effort to enhance one's income for sustenance. The purchasing capacity of a salaried person on permanent job when increases because of grant of increments and pay revision or for some other change in service conditions, there is always a competing attitude in the private sector to enhance the salary to get better efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a person who is self-employed is bound to garner his resources and raise his charges/fees so that he can live with same facilities. To have the perception that he is likely to remain static and his income to remain stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude which always intends to live with dynamism and move and change with the time. Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty in addition of future prospects to the existing income unlike in the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said perception does not really deserve acceptance. We are inclined to think that there can be some degree of difference as regards the percentage that is meant for or applied to in respect of the legal representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased who had a permanent job than a person who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. But not to apply the principle of standardization on the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. And, therefore, degree-test is imperative. Unless the degree-test is applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has to have the inbuilt concept of percentage. Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable."
(emphasis added)
25.. For loss of consortium, as he was of quite young age and survived by his wife, minor sons and daughter at a very young age and towards love and affection also, some considerable amount ought to have been awarded. In Pranay Sethi (supra) the Constitution Bench vide para 52 held thus:
"52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the Tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that 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 principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads. (emphasis added)"
26. Ultimately, the Court vide para 59 concluded thus:
"59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
59.1. The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 421 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.
59.2. As Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54 has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh (supra) is not a binding precedent.
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 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.
59.5. 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 hereinbefore.
59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
59.8. 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."
27. The above legal position has not been disputed and, therefore, the compensation is to be awarded after its computation in terms of the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. and so far as the income aspect is concerned, we are of the considered view that the judgments in the cases of Laxmi Devi & others v. Mohammad Tabbar & Another (2008) 12 SCC 165 and Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Tranpsort Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 have come to be upheld and subsequently noticed in the Constitution Bench judgment (supra), hence need not be reiterated.
28. Considering the age of the deceased to be 33 years, we are of the opinion that 40% income should be added towards the future prospects. On the point of deduction from income towards personal expenses also the law is almost settled by the Constitution Bench. Vide para 59.5, the Bench has approved paras 30 to 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra). However, for the purpose of the case in hand Para-30 of the judgment is relevant and that runs as under:-
"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 standardized 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."
29. For the purposes of case in hand, para 30 is relevant. The dependents are the wife, two minor sons, a minor daughters, and mother and therefore, 1/5th deduction towards personal expenses will be valid.
30. On the question of multiplier also we find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that multiplier of 17 should have been applied. In Pranay Shetty's case the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court concerned with the view taken in Rajesh Kumar that has approved the table given in Sarla Verma. Speaking for the Bench Chief Justice Mishra held that "the multiplier has already been fixed in Sarla Verma which has been approved in eshma Kumari with which we concur." In Sarla Verma (supra) vide paragraph 42 the Court has held thus:
"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 Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 of 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, 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 years to 70 years."
31. In view of the above principles laid down in Sarla Verma affirmed in Pranay Sethi, in the present case multiplier of 16 would be applicable and so we do would be applicable for the deceased having died at the age of 33 years and so we do apply.
32. Now coming to conventional heads the Constitution Bench while providing for Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 15,00/- for loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Bench recommended 10% hike at every three years. Thus, the Apex Court applied the above principle and fixed amount in different conventional heads to bring about consistency and to avoid any variation in the orders passed by the tribunals or courts.
33. Accordingly, we direct a total compensation admissible for the claimant be given to them is as under:-
Notional Income 5,000/- p.m. Rs. 60,000/-p.a. Future Prospects 40% of Rs. 60000/-
Rs. 24,000/-
Total Income Rs. 84,000/-
Deduction towards personal expenses 1/5th of total income Rs. 16,800/-
Dependency 84,000-16,800 Rs. 67,200/-
Multiplier 16 Compensation 67,200/- x 16 Rs. 10,75,200/-
Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
Total Compensation Rs. 11,45,200/-
34. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Court below is enhanced from 3,45,000/- to Rs. 11,45,200/- with simple interest @ of 7% per annum from the date of presentation of the application.
35. In view of the above, the appeal stands allowed. The compensation awarded to the claimants/appellants under the order of the Tribunal dated 19.8.2010 is accordingly enhanced and award stands modified to the extent indicated herein above.
(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 5.2.2020
Shiraz