Himachal Pradesh High Court
Fao No.84/2015 vs Amarjeet Singh And Others on 23 September, 2015
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAOs No.84 & 85 of 2015 Reserved on : 31.8.2015 .
Date of Decision : September 23, 2015
1. FAO No.84/2015 Shriram General Insurance Company ....Appellant.
versus Amarjeet Singh and others ...Respondents.
of
2. FAO No.85/2015 Smt. Mamta Devi and others ...Appellants Versus rt Pappu and others ...Respondents Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Appellants : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, in FAO No.84 of 2015.
Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate, in FAO No.85 of 2015.
For the Respondents : Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4; Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.5; and Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.6, in FAO No.84 of 2015.
Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.1; Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.2; and Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3, in FAO No.85 of 2015.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:00:03 :::HCHP
...2...
Sanjay Karol, Judge These appeals arise out of the same award, hence, are being disposed of together.
.
2. Petition, filed under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, stands allowed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the of Tribunal), and in Claim Petition No.1-NL/2 of 2011, titled as Amarjeet Singh and others v. Pappu and others, rt claimants have been held entitled to compensation as under:
"Rs.9,37,000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till deposit of the awarded amount. Out of the total awarded amount petitioners No.3 and 4 shall be entitled to collect amount of Rs.50,000/- each while petitioner No.1 who is father of the deceased shall be entitled to collect an amount of Rs.1.0 lac. The remaining awarded amount shall be collected by the petitioner No.2 who is mother of the deceased."
3. The Tribunal, while adjudicating the petition, framed the following issues:
"Issue No.1: Whether Lucky Arora died in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 25.10.2010 at about 5:45 p.m. Near Annapurna Hotel (Bhud ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:00:03 :::HCHP ...3...
Barrier) due to rash and negligent driving of respondent NO.1? OPP Issue No.2: If Issue No.1, is answered in .
affirmative, whether the petitioners being the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled for the grant of compensation if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? OPP of Issue No.3: Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of rt accident? OPR-3 Issue No.4: Relief."
4. Facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeals being that vehicle bearing No.HR-68- 0368, owned by Kamaal Din (owner), driven by Pappu (driver), insured with Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, met with an accident on 25.10.2010.
The driver being at fault as his actions were rash and negligent. In the said accident, Lucky Arora, who was driving Motorcycle No.HP-12C-4121, died. FIR No.146/10, dated 25.10.2010, for commission of offences under the provisions of Sections 279 and 304- ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:00:03 :::HCHP ...4...
A of the Indian Penal Code, was also registered at Police Station, Baddi.
5. Tribunal found the deceased to have died .
as a result of (i) rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. the Tipper, (ii) claimants being dependents were entitled for compensation, (iii) taking the annual income of the of deceased, for the purpose of dependency to be `57,000/-, by applying a multiplier of 16, compensation rt on account of loss of dependency was determined to be `9,12,000/-. In addition, claimants were also held entitled to `15,000/- towards funeral expenses and `10,000/- towards loss of estate.
6. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, assails the award on the following grounds: (i) deceased, who was pursuing his studies in B.Com, was unemployed, hence claimants are entitled to compensation as per ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 10 SCC 683, (ii) in any event, income of the deceased, as per salary certificate, cannot be said to have been proven in accordance with law.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:00:03 :::HCHP
...5...
7. On the other hand, Mr. Suneet Goel, learned counsel for the claimants, assails the award, for the reasons that (i) the Tribunal wrongly applied the .
multiplier of 16. It should have been 18, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Munna Lal Jain and another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, (2015) 6 SCC 347; and Sarla Verma (Smt) and of others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, (ii) inadequate compensation stands rt awarded towards funeral expenses, loss of estate, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 54. Further, rebutting the contentions of the Insurer, it is argued that proceedings being summary in nature, claimants called the Accountant of the Employer/ Organization, who has proved the salary certificate and deceased being the only son, compensation determined by the Tribunal is highly inadequate.
8. Certain facts are not in dispute. Offending vehicle, i.e. Tipper bearing No.HR-68-0368, owned by Kamaal Din, driven by Pappu, met with an accident on ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:00:03 :::HCHP ...6...
25.10.2010, near Annapurna Hotel on National Highway No.21-A on Pinjore-Swarghat Road. The vehicle had hit Motorcycle No.HP-12C-4121, driven by .
Lucky Arora, who died, as a result of the accident. FIR No.164/10, dated 25.10.2010 also stood registered, for commission of offences under the provisions of Sections 279 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.
of
9. There is no plea or proof of contributory negligence.
10. rt The accident stands proved on record through the testimony of Shri Jagan Nath (PW-4).
11. That Lucky Arora was born on 14.11.1989 stands established, not only through the ocular version as also documentary evidence, i.e. the Matriculation Certificate (Ex. PW-2/H) and Driving Licence (Ex.PW-
2/F). Thus, as on the date of the accident, age of the deceased was 20 years and 11 months.
12. Through the testimony Smt. Mamta Devi (PW-2), mother of the deceased, it stands proved that deceased was the sole bread earner of the family and as such all the claimants, being parents and sisters, were dependent upon him. Father of the deceased ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:00:03 :::HCHP ...7...
remains ill and sisters are studying in a college.
Claimants have no source of income either by way of agriculture or otherwise.
.
13. In the petition, it clearly stands averred that deceased was employed as an Accountant-cum-Store Assistant with M/s Rannesh Gas Agency, Sai Road, Baddi. He was also pursuing his studies in B.Com of (Information and System) from Sikkim Manipal University, Gangtok. He had cleared his 5th Semester and rt also subsequently undergone Computer Examination (Tally).
14. Since the early age of 19 years, deceased had started working. Initially, in the year 2008, he was employed as an Office Assistant with M/s Borkar Packaging Private Ltd. Nalagarh, on a monthly salary of `5,175/- and thereafter employed as an Accounts-cum-
Store Assistant with Jagdish Chand Gupta, Engineers and Contractors on a monthly salary of `8,500/-. For better prospects, he changed his job and with effect from 1.9.2010 started working with M/s Rannesh Gas Agency, on a monthly salary of `9,500/-. Smt. Mamta Devi (PW-2) has testified such facts. She has also ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:00:03 :::HCHP ...8...
proved documents (Ex. PW-2/B, 2/C, 2/D, 2/E, 2/F & 2/H). Noticeably, there has been considerable increase in the salary.
.
15. Shri Ijender Singh (PW-3), an authorized representative of the last employer, has proved record of appointment dated 24.8.2010 (Ex.PW-3/B), indicating gross salary of the deceased to be `9,500/-.
of Deceased joined and was discharging his duties as an Accountant-cum-Store Assistant can not be disputed.
rt Such fact becomes evidently clear.
16. From the cross-examination part of his testimony, there does not appear to be any challenge to the correctness of the contents of letter of appointment. No doubt, record of disbursement of salary ought to have been produced in Court, but then keeping in view the nature of proceedings, which are summary in nature, prima facie, appointment of the deceased on a monthly salary of `9,500/- stands proved on record. It be also observed that deceased joined on 1.10.2010 and the accident took place on 25.10.2010. As such, there may not have been any disbursement of the salary in favour of the deceased.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:00:03 :::HCHP...9...
17. It is also not the suggested case of any of the parties that the documents were fabricated only for the purpose of establishing employment or income of .
the deceased.
18. It appears that deceased was an intelligent and industrious person. After completing his schooling, he not only completed his studies in Graduation, but of also undertook courses in computer training (Tally) from the Institute of Certified Bookkeepers and CDEC.
rt He kept on changing his jobs, for better prospects and grew in life. Despite being employed, he continued to pursue his studies in B.Com, though by way of distant learning.
19. It would not be right to contend that deceased was only a student and not working or that claimants have not been able to establish the factum of employment and salary of the deceased. It be also observed that deceased was the only son and bread earner as such, the entire family was dependent upon him. Also sisters, who were studying, had to be married in future.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:00:03 :::HCHP...10...
20. In a case where the deceased was self-
employed or was employed on a fixed salary, even without any annual increment, as to whether addition .
in income for future prospects is required to be made or not, there was divergence of opinion by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India.
21. In Rajesh (supra), the apex Court allowed of the same whereas in Reshma Kumari and others v.
Madan Mohan and another, (2013) 9 SCC 65, it was rt disallowed. Noticeably, both the decisions are of three-
Judge Bench.
22. For the reasons that decision in Rajesh (supra) is not only subsequent in point in time, but also followed and reiterated in Munna Lal Jain (supra);
Kalpanaraj & others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (2015) 2 SCC 764; and Sanjay Verma v.
Haryana Roadways, (2014) 3 SCC 210, claimants have made out a case for grant of compensation on account of future prospects.
23. Uniformly, the Court has adopted a thumb rule of addition of 50 per cent of the actual salary, to the actual salary income of the deceased, towards ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:00:03 :::HCHP ...11...
future prospects. 50 per cent is where deceased has a permanent job and is below 40 years of age. However, if age is between 40 and 50 years, it has to be 30 per .
cent.
24. In the instant case, I find the deceased to be a bright, young and an enterprising person. While pursuing his studies, he was gainfully employed and of drawing a salary of `9,500/-. He was just 20 years and 11 months of age. Not only his job profile improved, rt but so also did his salary.
25. In view of aforesaid discussion, reliance placed on Govind Yadav (supra) is misconceived.
26. It is the duty of the Tribunal to award compensation, which is just, equitable, fair and reasonable.
27. As such, keeping in view the overall attending circumstances, interest of justice would be met, if an amount equivalent to 50 per cent of the last drawn salary is added to the actual salary of the deceased for. Thus, taking the income of the deceased to be `9,500/- per month, as computed by the Tribunal, and adding 50% of the income to it, monthly income of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:00:03 :::HCHP ...12...
the deceased comes to `14,250/- (`9,500 + 4750 = `14,250) per month, or `1,71,000/- per year. Since deceased was a bachelor at the time of his death, .
deduction of 50% of the amount is required to be made from the total annual income. Hence, after deduction of 50%, the annual income of the deceased comes to `85,500/-.
of
28. In view of law laid down in Munna Lal Jain (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra), Mr. Suneet Goel is rt right in contending that the Tribunal ought to have applied a multiplier of 18, for the age of the deceased, at the time of death, was between 20 and 25 years.
29. As such, by applying the multiplier of 18, claimants are held entitled to a compensation of `15,39,000/- (`85,500 x 18 = `15,39,000/-) for loss of dependency.
30. Noticeably, accident took place not in the home town of the deceased but at a distant place. So, in view of the law laid down in Rajesh (supra), funeral expenses are enhanced to `30,000/- from `15,000/-.
Also, compensation on account of loss to estate is enhanced from `10,000/- to `25,000/-.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:00:03 :::HCHP...13...
31. Thus, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of `15,94,000/-. They are also entitled for interest, as ordered by the Tribunal. Out of the total .
awarded amount, Ms Bharti and Ms Savita shall be entitled for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each, while Shri Amarjeet Singh, who is father of the deceased, shall be entitled for an amount of Rs.1.25 lac and Smt. Mamta of Devi, mother of the deceased, shall be entitled for the remaining amount.
rtWith the aforesaid modification in the award, so passed by the Tribunal, both the appeals stand disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
( Sanjay Karol ), September 23, 2015(sd) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:00:03 :::HCHP