Gujarat High Court
Anupama Ketan Shah W/O Ketan Shah & 3 vs Hameed Mohammad Pathan & 2 on 18 November, 2014
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Vipul M. Pancholi
C/FA/890/2002 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 890 of 2002
With
FIRST APPEAL NO. 883 of 2002
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
==============================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation
of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
==============================================================================
ANUPAMA KETAN SHAH W/O KETAN SHAH & 3....Appellant(s)
Versus
HAMEED MOHAMMAD PATHAN & 2....Defendant(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AJAY R MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 in F.A. No.890/02
MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH for the Appellant(s) No.1 in F.A.883/02
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Defendant(s) No. 1 - 2
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 - 2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 18/11/2014
Page 1 of 21
C/FA/890/2002 JUDGMENT
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) These appeals arise out of the common judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad, dated 6 th November 2001 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 946 of 1998. In the early morning hours on 7th March 1998 at about 4 `O' clock, a young doctor - Ketan Shah, aged about 31 years was returning home in his car after late night surgery. When at a cross road in the city of Ahmedabad known by income-tax Cross Roads, his car met with an accident with a tractor- trailer, which was also trying to cross the intersection. The accident caused instantaneous death of the doctor. His widow, one minor son and aged parents filed Motor Accident Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.85.00 lacs from the driver, owner and the insurer of the tractor trailer. Before the Claims Tribunal it was argued that the accident took place due to sole negligence of the driver of the tractor-trailer. The deceased was aged 31 years. He was holding the degree of M.S. in General Surgery. Since past one year or so before the accident, he was assisting Dr. Anil Jain, a leading Cardiac Surgeon of the city. The claimants produced the evidence of the income of the deceased at the time of death. It was argued that in due course of time the deceased would have set up his own private hospital and earned much higher income. Page 2 of 21
C/FA/890/2002 JUDGMENT
2. The Claims Tribunal held that the driver of the tractor-trailer was negligent to the extent of 80% in causing the accident, and 20% negligence was attributed to the driver of the car. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3.00 lacs per annum. One third thereof was deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased himself. Looking to the age of the deceased, multiplier of 16 was applied. The Tribunal added Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, and Rs.10,000/- for loss of expectation of life. Out of total compensation of Rs.32,20,000/- thus computed, the Tribunal deducted 20% towards negligence of the deceased himself, and held that the claimants would receive a total compensation of Rs.25,75,600/- with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization.
4. The claimants have filed First Appeal No.890 of 2002 seeking enhancement in the compensation. The Insurance Company has filed cross appeal being First Appeal No.883 of 2002 for reduction in the compensation.
5. First adverting to the question of negligence, we notice that the claimants had examined one eye witness at Exh.60. He deposed that he is Page 3 of 21 C/FA/890/2002 JUDGMENT employed in Lawrence & Mayo Company. Additionally, he was also doing the work of putting advertisement pamphlets in the newspapers. On the day of the accident, he was doing such work at Income-tax Cross Roads. He saw that one car was coming from Gandhi Bridge direction going towards High Court side. At that time, five trailers were travelling from Paldi side going towards Vadaj. First of the trailers dashed against the car. The car was flung at a far away distance. Trailer driver escaped towards Vadaj. Later on, he learnt that the police had arrested the trailer driver. He further stated that the Maruti car was being driven at a moderate speed. Trailer was coming at high speed. In the cross- examination it was suggested that while doing his work, he would be backing towards the main road, and therefore, he would not have witnessed the accident. He denied such suggestion, and stuck to his evidence in the examination-in-chief.
6. The claimants also produced Exh.44, the panchnama of scene of the accident drawn by the police. This panchnama showed Maruti car in the middle of the road near the road-divider with all four wheels in the air. At a distance of 100 feet towards south, from where the car was lying, was the statue of Gandhiji at the Income-tax Circle. The car was completely smashed. On the steering wheel and on the road, there were blood marks. No break marks were noticed anywhere on the road. Page 4 of 21
C/FA/890/2002 JUDGMENT
7. On the basis of such evidence, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the driver of the trailer ought to have been held solely negligent for causing the accident. The Maruti car was coming from eastern direction going westward and the trailer was travelling from south going towards northern direction of the road. At a cross-road junction, the Maruti car was coming from right hand side of the trailer, and therefore, as per Regulation 9 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, the Maruti car had a right of way. Counsel further submitted that the eye witness described the manner in which the accident took place. The panchnama also showed that the driver of the trailer did not apply the break. On the other hand, counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Maruti car must be coming at high speed, or else, the driver could have avoided the accident or at any rate the impact with which the two vehicles collided.
8. It is a matter of common knowledge that the famous Ashram Road in the city of Ahmedabad passes from Gandhi Ashram and goes towards southern direction towards Vadilal Sarabhai Hospital. Perpendicular to this road is an intersection coming from Gandhi Bridge over the river Sabarmati intersecting the Ashram Road at a junction, popularly known as Income-tax Circle because of the presence of Income-tax main office Page 5 of 21 C/FA/890/2002 JUDGMENT since many years. In the center of this junction, there is a famous statue of Gandhiji. From the evidence, it emerges that the deceased Dr. Ketan Shah was coming from Gandhi Bridge direction travelling westward going to his house. The trailer was travelling from southern direction of Ashram Road going northward. For the driver of the trailer, therefore, the Maruti car was advancing towards the cross-road from his right hand side. Regulation 9 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 provides as under:
"The driver of a motor vehicle, shall on entering a road intersection, at which traffic is not being regulated, if the road entered is a main road designated as such, give way to the vehicles proceeding along that road, and in any other case give way to all traffic approaching the intersection on his right hand."
Thus, as per this Regulation, the Maruti car had a right of way over the trailer. Additionally, the trailer being a heavy vehicle, its driver owed the duty to take extra care to ensure that the vehicle is driven at a moderate speed, so that in case of sudden need, he could control the trailer. With its high momentum of a heavy vehicle, it is more difficult to break the speed than of a smaller vehicle and it is always obligatory to reduce speed of a heavier vehicle, particularly when such a vehicle is approaching a junction. Even in early morning hours, Income-tax Circle in Ahmedabad cannot be expected to be deserted. The driver had to slow down and ensure that there are no other advancing vehicles from other directions. Page 6 of 21
C/FA/890/2002 JUDGMENT Two additional factors emerge from the evidence of the eye witness as well as the panchnama. Firstly, that the trailer must have been driven at an extremely high speed. In addition to the eye witness so stating, the panchnama showed that the Maruti car was lying nearly 100 feet away from the statue of Gandhiji further north. We may recall that the Maruti car was travelling east to west. The impact took place at the cross road, i.e. somewhere near the statue of Gandhiji. Thus, the Maruti car was dragged more than 100 feet after the first point of impact. This result could have been caused only if the trailer was driven at a high speed. Even after the trailer hit the car, its driver could not stop the vehicle for another 100 feet. Further, the panchnama did not notice any break marks before or even after the point of impact. The utter negligence and the rashness in which the trailer was being driven is, thus, writ large on the face of the record.
9. If any fault lied on the part of the car driver it was that he did not slow down his vehicle and applied breaks before the accident. So much has also been clearly established through the evidence on the record. Considering such factors, in our opinion, 90% of the negligent must be attached to the driver of the trailer, and 10% at the very best can be attributed to the driver of the car.
Page 7 of 21
C/FA/890/2002 JUDGMENT
10. Coming to the computation of the compensation, the claimants had examined Anupa K. Shah, widow of the deceased, at Exh.42. She stated that the deceased was born on 9th September 1966. On the day of the accident, some unknown caller informed her that her husband's car had met with an accident. She along with relatives reached the site and found that her husband had died. He was holding a degree of M.B.B.S. and M.S. in Surgery. He did his M.S. in Surgery in the year 1993. He worked for about three months in Kidney Department of Civil Hospital. He thereafter served in Gozaria Hospital for about 14 months, and thereafter for quarter to two years in Sushrusha Hospital at Ahmedabad. The deceased thereafter came in contact with Dr. Anil Jain, who was a Cardiac Surgeon. Her husband was also interested in heart surgery. Dr. Anil Jain sent him to Apollo Hospital, Madras, for training for about two months during September-October 1996. Since January 1997, her husband had joined Dr. Anil Jain, when he was attached with the Rajasthan Hospital. The deceased was working as an assistant to Dr. Anil Jain, and continued to do so till the accident. In the 12 months preceding the accident, he had received remuneration of Rs.3,78,000/- from such engagement. Such payments were made through cheques by Dr. Anil Jain. She had filed the income-tax return of her husband after his death. Her husband always wanted to set up a private nursing home. Had he not died, he would have done so.
Page 8 of 21
C/FA/890/2002 JUDGMENT
11. The claimants also examined Dr. Anil Jain at Exh.64. He deposed that between January 1997 and March 2001, he was attached to Rajasthan Hospital as a full-timer in Cardiac Department as a Cardiac Surgeon. As per his arrangement with the Hospital, he would be in-charge of all heart patients. He was free to choose any assistant for such work. As Head of the Department, he would receive full payment from the hospital. Out of such payments, he would be paying his assistant doctors. After he joined Rajasthan hospital in January 1997, Dr. Bharat Trivedi and Dr. Ketan Shah had joined him. They were assisting him during the surgeries. He was receiving payment from the hospital by cheque. Every month, he would pay his assistants. On the date of the accident, Dr. Ketan Shah had assisted him in a surgery. He had produced a certificate (Exh.65) of payment of Rs.3,78,051/- to Dr. Ketan Shah for the period between 18th January 1997 to 7th March 1998, which payments were made through cheque. According to him, Dr. Ketan Shah was a promising and bright doctor. He had a masters degree of General Surgery, and had a special interest in Cardiac Surgery. That is why deceased Dr. Ketan Shah had left his service and joined him. He had sent Dr. Shah to take experience in cardiac surgery to Apollo Hospital at Madras. He stated that none of the doctors in his team had left him. Dr. Bharat Trivedi, who had joined along with Dr. Ketan Shah was still with him. He was, on the date of the Page 9 of 21 C/FA/890/2002 JUDGMENT deposition i.e. August 2001, being paid Rs.7 to 7½ lacs per annum. The claimants also examined Dr. Yogesh Jamnadas Sutarwala at Exh.66. He was a Chartered Accountant, who had filed Income-tax returns of the deceased. He produced such returns for the last three years.
12. In addition to such oral evidence, the claimants also relied on the Income-tax returns of the deceased, and in particular, the last return for the assessment year 1998-99 (Exh.68). As per such return, the deceased had earned total income of Rs.3,71,181/-, out of which Rs.3,01,161/- was the income from business and profession. The claimants also relied on the payment certificate (Exh.65) given by Dr. Anil Jain with a covering letter stating that during the period between 18th January 1997 to 7th March 1998, the deceased had received a total payment of Rs.3,78,051/-. The details of the dates and cheque numbers through which such payments were made were also filed. Additionally, the claimants also produced at Exh.83 the statements of the Bank account of the deceased with Central Bank for the period between 1st April 1997 to 31st March 1998. The statement was used to corroborate the receipts of the cheque payments made by Dr. Anil Jain to the deceased.
13. From such evidence on record, two things clearly emerge. Firstly, that the deceased was a young man aged about 31 years. He had the Page 10 of 21 C/FA/890/2002 JUDGMENT qualification of M.B.B.S. and M.S. (Surgery). He passed M.S. (Surgery) in the year 1993. During the span of about five years after completing his higher education, he initially rendered service at Government and Trust hospitals. For just over a year before the accident, he had joined Dr. Anil Jain, who was a leading Cardiac Surgeon of the city. He would assist Dr. Anil Jain in heart surgeries and receive remuneration from him out of the payments received by Dr. Anil Jain from Rajasthan Hospital, where Dr. Jain was Head of the Cardiac Department. Thus, much of the evidence is unimpeachable and seriously not questioned by the Insurance Company.
14. Even the income earned by the deceased during the last year before the accident has been proved through reliable oral as well as documentary evidence. Dr. Anil Jain in his deposition described the nature of understanding between him and the deceased. Every month, he would pay to his assistant doctors, which included the deceased, for the work done by them during the previous months. Exh.65 gave the break-up of such payments made to the deceased between April 1997 till March 1998. The chart shows the precise dates of the cheques, the amounts of the cheques and the cheque numbers. During this period, according to this chart, the deceased received a total of Rs.3,78,051/- from Dr. Anil Jain. The Insurance Company never seriously questioned such payments, which according to the deponent, Dr. Anil Jain, were made by cheques. Page 11 of 21
C/FA/890/2002 JUDGMENT To seal this issue, we may refer to the Bank account of the deceased, extracts of which were produced at Exh.83 for the period 1 st April 1997 to 31st March 1998. This Bank statement would reflect every entry matching to the cheque payments so referred by Dr. Anil Jain in his statement (Exh.65). This contemporaneous evidence of depositing these cheques in the bank account of the deceased himself from time to time would leave no manner of doubt that Dr. Anil Jain did make the payment of a total of Rs.3,78,051/- during the said period. We may however notice that two payments were made after the date of the accident, one through cheque dated 7th March 1998 for a sum of Rs.40,000/- and another through cheque dated 30th March 1998 for an amount of Rs.30,000/-. Even if one suspects an element of attempt to increase the income of the deceased in relation to these two payments, we cannot attach too much importance to this factor, firstly because all the previous payments were made through cheques, and were made well before the accident. Secondly, as we discern the pattern of the payments, it emerges that almost every month, barring the month of May 1997, the deceased received one cheque payment per month. For the month of February 1998, till 7 th March, he had not received any payment. He had worked with Dr. Anil Jain for another seven days in March 1998. All the payments made upto February 1998, therefore, would not account for this period of about five weeks. Dr. Anil Jain, therefore, had to remunerate the deceased for such period Page 12 of 21 C/FA/890/2002 JUDGMENT when tragically he died in the accident.
15. All these payments and the income received was reflected in the Income-tax return (Exh.68), which was filed for the assessment year 1998-99. It is true that this return was filed on 3 rd August 1998, i.e. after the death of the deceased. Any income-tax return filed after the death would obviously have to be viewed carefully. However, merely because the return is filed post-death would not be conclusive of the fact that the income returned therein is either not genuine or exaggerated. The assessment year would end on 31st March. Statutorily, the deceased thereafter would have time upto the end of August of the year to file a return. If the return, therefore, was filed after the accident, the same was natural. The income shown in return was duly reflected in other records, and as noted and discussed above, duly proved before the Court, though reliable evidence oral as well as documentary.
16. In such income-tax return, the income disclosed from business and profession was a total of Rs.3,01,161/-. This would be expected because out of the total receipts, the deceased would have incurred expenditure for earning such income such as car petrol, depreciation of the car, maintenance and driver of the car, if any, and such other expenditure. It is true that the return also showed a total of income-tax liability of Page 13 of 21 C/FA/890/2002 JUDGMENT Rs.52,551/- In addition to said sum of Rs.3,01,161/-, the deceased also earned additional taxable income of Rs.16,478/-, comprising of bank interest, etc. On such income, the deceased had to pay total tax of Rs.52,551/-. Apportioning a portion of Rs.52,551/- of tax on his other taxable income, we could safely presume that the deceased had the liability of Rs.50,000/- on his income from profession of Rs.3,01,161/-. The known income of the deceased at the time of death can thus be calculated at Rs.2,51,161/-. It is true that in two earlier years preceding the assessment year 1998-99, the deceased did not show considerable income. However, this was to be expected, and was clearly explained from the evidence on record. Till January 1997, the deceased was serving in Government Hospital or a Trust Hospital. His salary, therefore, was moderate. However, this period was only the beginning of his career. He was a fresh young doctor barely out of college. His association with Dr. Anil Jain was, however, much more remunerative. We must, therefore, take the income of the deceased at the time of his death instead of taking the average of the three years' income as suggested by the counsel for the Insurance Company. This would lead to a distorted picture since the deceased had started earning larger income after he left public hospital and associated with Dr. Anil Jain.
18. The question is, under the circumstances, should the Tribunal have Page 14 of 21 C/FA/890/2002 JUDGMENT taken into account any prospect of increase in such income. Learned counsel Shri Shah for the Insurance Company vehemently contended that being a self-employed professional, no increase in the future income should be granted. We are afraid this is not a rule without exceptions, and if an exception had to be carved out, we cannot think of a better one. The deceased was highly qualified doctor with specialization. He had only put in five years as a Surgeon when he earned nearly Rs.3.00 lacs of income in a year. He was aged 31 years when the tragic accident cut short his life. Dr. Anil Jain made two important disclosures in the year 2001 when he came before the Court for deposition. Firstly that none of the members in his team had left him over the years, and secondly, Dr. Bharat Trivedi, a colleague of the deceased, was then paid Rs.7.00 to 7.50 lacs per annum.
19. Under the circumstances, even discording the possibility of the deceased setting up his own private practice and his own nursing home, as it was his vision according to his wife, as an experienced, talented and competent surgeon, his income certainly would have increased over a period of time. Two things are of common knowledge. Firstly, that doctors, particularly the Surgeons, would be in high demand with greater experience, and secondly that over a period of time, the medical treatment which would include the doctor's charges have increased manifold. 50% Page 15 of 21 C/FA/890/2002 JUDGMENT increase over the current income of the deceased, therefore, must be taken into account for computing the loss of dependency benefits for the family.
20. As noted, the Tribunal deducted one third of the income of the deceased for his personal expenditure. The claimants before the Tribunal were the widow and a minor son and the aged parents of the deceased. It is true that the parents resided separately. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that they had independent source of income or that the father or for that matter the mother was still active in any profession or vocation. They were aged 65 and 64 years at the time of the accident. The deceased therefore had left behind four and not three dependents. Deduction for personal expenditure, therefore, would have to be one fourth and not one third.
21. With respect to loss of consortium and loss to estate in a recent judgment dated 14.10.2014 in First Appeal No. 3894 of 2006, this Court has observed as under:
"This Court, in a recent judgment dated 14.10.2014 in First Appeal No.3894 of 2006, considering various judgment of the Supreme Court, held and observed as under:
"At this stage, learned counsel Shri Kakkad for the claimants urged that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.1 lac under the head of consortium and Rs.1 lac towards Page 16 of 21 C/FA/890/2002 JUDGMENT loss of care and guidance to the child. He pointed out that in a later decision in the case of Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan, (2013) 7 SCC 476, the Supreme Court once again granted Rs.1 lac under such heads. It was also pointed out that in the case of Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza v. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, 2013 ACJ 2733, the Supreme Court awarded similar amounts relying on the decision in the case of Rajesh (supra).
On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case Minu Rout v. Satya Pradhymna Mohapatra, (2013) 10 SCC 695 in which a sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded under conventional heads. He pointed out that this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Naynaben, wd/o Bharatkumar Bhalchandra Patel, in First Appeal No.481 of 2001 referring to the decision in the case of Minu Rout (supra) awarded a combined sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.
In the case of Rajesh (supra), the Supreme Court advocated for increase in the amount of consortium being awarded in fatal cases. It was observed as under:
"17. The ratio of a decision of this Court, on a legal issue is a precedent. But an observation made by this Court, mainly to achieve uniformity and consistence on a socioeconomic issue, as contrasted from a legal principle, though a precedent, can be, and in fact ought to be periodically revisited, as observed in Santosh Devi. We may therefore, revisit the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses. It may be noted that the sum of Rs.2500 to Rs.10,000 in those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In Sarla Varma case, it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the rage of Rs.5000 to Rs.10,000. In legal Page 17 of 21 C/FA/890/2002 JUDGMENT parlance, "consortium" is the right of the spouse to the company,care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc. the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of nonpecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English courts have also recognized the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are if the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium."
"In the said judgment, the Supreme Court awarded a sum of Rs.1 lac separately for loss of care guidance for the minor children. One may, however, notice that no separate amount was awarded for loss of estate. Later, in the case of Vimal Kanwar (supra), the Supreme Court once again awarded compensation in following manner:
"33. Having regard to the facts and evidence on record, we estimate the monthly income of the deceased Sajjan Singh at Rs.9,000 x 2 = Rs.18,000/- per month. From this his personal living expenses, which should be 1/3rd, there being three dependents has to be deducted. Thereby, the 'actual salary' will come to Rs.18,000 - Rs.6,000/- = Rs.12,000/- per month or Rs.12,000 x 12 =1,44,000/- per annum. As the deceased was 28 ½ years old at the time of death the multiplier of Page 18 of 21 C/FA/890/2002 JUDGMENT 17 is applied, which is appropriate to the age of the deceased. The normal compensation would then work out to be Rs.1,44,000/- x 17 =Rs.24,48,000/- to which we add the usual award for loss of consortium and loss of the estate by providing a conventional sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-; loss of love and affection for the daughter Rs.2,00,000/-, loss of love and affection for the widow and the mother at Rs.1,00,000/- each i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- and funeral expenses of Rs.25,000/-." Likewise, in the case of Sanabanu Nazirbhai Mirza (supra) also the Supreme Court awarded such amounts without separately awarding any compensation for loss of estate.
"It is true that in the case of Minu Rout, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court confined the compensation under conventional heads to Rs.50,000/-. This Court has, as noted above, adopted such a modality in the case of United India Insurance Company v. Naynaben (supra). "It can thus be seen that the compensation to be awarded towards consortium and loss of love and affection to the children is not rigidly standardized. Nevertheless, the trend and the indications available from different decisions of the Supreme Court are in favour of increasing such compensation under conventional heads to keep in tune with the reducing purchasing power of the rupee as also bearing in mind the concept of sudden tragic and needless loss of life resulting into trauma and mental agony to the family members of the deceased. If it happens to be the wife, she would be deprived of life long love, affection and protection and companionship. The children at tender age would lose a parent without whom their upbringing and parenting would indefinitely be incomplete. The judgments of the Supreme Court noted above, including one in the case of Minu Raut cited by the counsel for the appellant do suggest a break from the present trend of awarding rather conservative amounts towards consortium or loss of love and affection to the children."Page 19 of 21
C/FA/890/2002 JUDGMENT
22. In the facts of the present case, therefore, we adopt a sum of Rs.1 lac towards combined heads of loss of consortium and loss of life and affection to the children. The computation of the compensation thus would be arrived as under:
The income of the deceased at the time of accident -
Rs.2,51,161/-. 50% increase would bring the total to Rs.3,76,741/- per annum, rounded off to Rs.3,77,000/-. One fourth thereof or Rs.94,250/-
would be set apart for the personal expenditure of the deceased, leaving a net amount of Rs.2,82,750/- for the family. Adopting multiplier of 16 as per the decision in the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, looking to the age of the deceased, the total dependency benefits to the family would be Rs.45,24,000/-. To this, we would add Rs.1,00,000/-
towards consortium, loss to estate, etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards post-
death ceremonies, and the net amount would come to Rs.46,34,000/-.
Deducting 10% thereof for the negligence of the deceased, the claimants would thus receive a total compensation of Rs.41,70,600/-. This would be in modification of the order of the Claims Tribunal. The additional compensation shall be paid with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till actual payment.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.)
Page 20 of 21
C/FA/890/2002 JUDGMENT
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.)
sndevu
Page 21 of 21