Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the insurance company as well as the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. No arguments were advanced regarding the findings pertaining to Issue No. 1. The learned counsel for insurance company advanced arguments pertaining to the quantum of compensation and validity of driving license of respondent No. 1 Sandeep in the MACP cases. Firstly, I will deal with the arguments advanced by 8 of 26 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141930 2023:PHHC:141930 FAO-1113-2018 (O&M) and other connected cases learned counsel for the insurance company regarding the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind in the aforesaid MACP cases regarding which Issue No. 2 has been framed.

20. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the insurance company and the point raised by learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. In the case in hand, the deceased victim is namely Sultan who was 22 years old at the time of accident. As per the facts of the 12 of 26 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141930 2023:PHHC:141930 FAO-1113-2018 (O&M) and other connected cases case, he was running a shop of typing, photostat, lamination, fax, scanning, printing etc. and it was alleged that he was earning Rs. 18,000/- per month. However, Kavita PW-1 during her cross-examination admitted that she does not have any proof regarding the income of her husband. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind has considered the income of late Sultan as Rs. 7,150/- per month. It is matter of record that while assessing the quantum of compensation, no enhanced income has been considered on account of future prospects. The learned counsel for insurance company has mainly argued on the point that the income of deceased victim should have been considered on the basis of Minimum Wages Act instead of rate of wages fixed by the Deputy Commissioner. I have considered this aspect of the present case. In my opinion, there cannot be any fixed rule in all the situations where there is no documentary evidence regarding income of the deceased nor there is any fixed rule that income of the deceased has to be taken only as per minimum wages revised from time to time. The income provided in Minimum Wages Act, revised from time to time can be a basic criteria or guideline to assess the income of deceased or injured, as the case may be. The facts and circumstances of each case has to be evaluated. No restriction can be imposed in assessing the income of deceased or the injured in order to assess just and fair compensation for the dependents. The provision to grant compensation under Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and in such like situation, the restriction to assess the income of deceased victim as provided under Minimum Wages Act is unjustified. Therefore, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the insurance company on this point does not hold ground. The accident took place on 21.11.2013. The deceased victim was 22 years of age. Considering these facts, in my opinion, the income assessed by the learned 13 of 26 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141930 2023:PHHC:141930 FAO-1113-2018 (O&M) and other connected cases Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind as Rs. 7,150/- per month is neither excessive nor unjustified. Rather, while calculating the quantum of compensation, no future prospects have been considered. By relying upon the authority cited in "National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi and Ors.", 2017(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 1009, the future prospects have to be considered in case of deceased Sultan, who was 22 years old, which is to the extent of 40%. The claimants/respondents have not filed cross-objections in this appeal. The quantum of compensation is agitated by the insurance company. There is a glaring mistake that the Tribunal has not considered future prospects while calculating the quantum of compensation and the same cannot be ignored. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind requires re-calculation. Thus, 40% increase in monthly income, as assessed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind to the tune of Rs. 7,150/- comes out to be Rs. 2860/- and the total monthly income comes out to be Rs. 10,010/-, round figure Rs. 10,000/- and the annual income comes out to be Rs. 1,20,000/-. Considering the number of family members i.e. wife, minor child and the parents, 1/4th income is deducted towards personal expenditure and the annual dependency of the family is taken as Rs. 90,000/-. Considering the age of the deceased victim as 22 years, multiplier of 18 is appropriate and with this multiplier, the amount of compensation comes out to be Rs.16,20,000/-. The wife, minor child and the parents are also awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000/- each on account of loss of consortium/filial consortium, which comes out to be Rs. 1,60,000/-. The claimants are granted Rs. 15,000/- towards loss to estate, Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenditure and the total amount of compensation comes out to be Rs. 18,10,000/-, which the claimants are 14 of 26 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141930 2023:PHHC:141930 FAO-1113-2018 (O&M) and other connected cases entitled to receive from the respondents. After adjusting Rs. 13,88,300/-, in case already deposited, the difference is of Rs. 4,21,700/-, which the dependents are entitled to receive with interest, as per the terms of Award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, considering these facts, the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the claimants in MACP No. 14 of 04.01.2014/12.04.2016 titled as Kavita Devi etc. Vs. Sandeep etc. stands modified in favour of the claimants and against the respondents in MACP case.

23. I have considered the arguments advanced before me. In this case, Munish the deceased victim died in motor vehicle accident. In the claim petition, it was alleged that he was 32 years old and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. In order to establish the facts of the case, Krishna mother of the deceased victim stepped into the witness box as PW-2. She has placed on record the certificates of Munish as multipurpose health worker, which are Ex.P-7 to Ex.P-10. In order to establish the income, the respondents/claimants/cross-objectors No. 1 to 5 have placed on record the Income Tax Returns Ex.P-27 to Ex.P-29 and as per the latest Income Tax Return Ex.P-27 his gross income is mentioned as Rs. 2,40,380/-. After deduction of income tax, the net income is mentioned as Rs. 2,36,053/-. With this annual income, the monthly income comes out to be approximately Rs. 19,671/-. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind has failed to justify as to why the aforesaid ITRs exhibited on the file were ignored. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind has wrongly considered the income of deceased victim to the tune of Rs. 7,150/- per month by wrongly ignoring the income of deceased as per his ITRs. Therefore, the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind in this case is unjustified and 17 of 26 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141930 2023:PHHC:141930 FAO-1113-2018 (O&M) and other connected cases without any basis and it requires recalculation. After considering the ITR Ex.P-27, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 19,000/- (round figure). Considering his age as 32 years, he is given 40% increase in income on account of future prospects as provided in National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra) and 40% increase is Rs. 7600/- and the monthly income is taken as Rs.26,600/- and the annual income comes out to be Rs. 3,19,200/-. Considering the number of family members, 1/4th income is deducted towards personal expenditure and the annual dependency of the family comes out to be Rs.2,39,400/-. By relying upon the authority cited in 2009 ACJ 1298 Supreme Court of India, in case titled "Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another", considering his age as 32 years, multiplier of 16 is appropriate to be applied in this case and with this multiplier, amount of compensation comes out to be Rs. 38,30,400/-. The respondents/claimants/cross-objectors No.1 to 5 who are widow, two minor children and old parents, they are granted Rs. 40,000/- each on account of loss of consortium/filial consortium, which comes out to be Rs.2,00,000/-. The respondents/claimants/cross-objectors No. 1 to 5 are further granted Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenditure, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss to estate. Thus, total amount of compensation comes out to be Rs. 40,60,400/-, which the respondents/claimants/cross-objectors No. 1 to 5 are entitled to receive from the respondents in MACP case. After adjusting the compensation of Rs. 12,59,600/- in case already deposited, the difference is of Rs. 28,00,800/- which the dependents are entitled to receive with interest as per the terms of Award passed by the Tribunal. With this observation, the cross-objections filed by the respondents/claimants/cross-objectors No. 1 to 5 are accepted.

26. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the insurance company and the point raised by learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. In the case in hand, the deceased victim Ram Niwas was 46 years old at the time of accident. As per the facts of the case, he was an agriculturist and having a tractor which was used for the work of earth filling, cultivating the fields of other farmers on contract basis along with his own fields and it was alleged that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, Neelam PW-3 during her cross-examination admitted that she does not have any proof regarding the income and occupation of her husband. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind has considered the income of late Ram Niwas as Rs.7,150/- per month. It is matter of record that while assessing the quantum of compensation, no enhanced income has been considered on account of future prospects. The learned counsel for insurance company has mainly argued on the point that the income of deceased victim should have been considered on the basis of Minimum Wages Act instead of wages fixed by the Deputy Commissioner. However, as discussed above in the findings given in FAO-1114-2018, 20 of 26 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141930 2023:PHHC:141930 FAO-1113-2018 (O&M) and other connected cases there cannot be any fixed rule in all the situations where there is no documentary evidence regarding income of the deceased nor there is any fixed rule that income of the deceased has to be fixed only as per minimum wages revised from time to time. The income provided in Minimum Wages Act revised from time to time can be a basic criteria or guideline to assess the income of deceased or injured, as the case may be. The facts and circumstances of each case has to be evaluated. No restriction can be imposed in assessing the income of deceased or the injured in order to assess just and fair compensation for the dependents. The provision to grant compensation under Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and in such like situation, the restriction to assess the income of deceased victim as provided under Minimum Wages Act is unjustified. Therefore, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the insurance company does not hold any ground. The accident took place on 21.11.2013. The deceased victim was 46 years of age. Considering these facts, in my opinion, the income assessed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind as Rs.7,150/- per month is neither excessive nor unjustified. Rather, while calculating the quantum of compensation, no future prospects have been considered. By relying upon the authority cited in National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra), the future prospects have to be considered in case of deceased Ram Niwas, who was 46 years old, to the extent of 25%. The claimants/respondents have not filed cross-objections in this appeal. The quantum of compensation is agitated by the insurance company. There is a glaring mistake that the Tribunal has not considered future prospects while calculating the quantum of compensation and the same cannot be ignored. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident 21 of 26 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141930 2023:PHHC:141930 FAO-1113-2018 (O&M) and other connected cases Claims Tribunal, Jind requires re-calculation. Thus, 25% increase in monthly income, as assessed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind to the tune of Rs. 7,150/- comes out to be Rs. 1787/- and the total monthly income comes out to be Rs. 8937/-, round figure Rs. 8900/- and the annual income comes out to be Rs. 1,06,800/-. Considering the number of family members i.e. wife, two children and the old parents, 1/4th income is deducted towards personal expenditure and the annual dependency of the family is taken as Rs. 80,100/-. Considering the age of the deceased victim as 46 years, multiplier of 13 is appropriate and with this multiplier, the amount of compensation comes out to be Rs.10,41,300/-. The wife, both children and the parents are also awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000/- each on account of loss of consortium/filial consortium, which comes out to be Rs. 2,00,000/-. The claimants are granted Rs. 15,000/- towards loss to estate, Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenditure and the total amount of compensation comes out to be Rs.12,71,300/-, which the claimants are entitled to receive from the respondents in MACP case. After adjusting Rs. 10,66,550/-, in case already deposited, the difference is of Rs. 2,04,750/- which the dependents are entitled to receive with interest as per the terms of Award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, considering these facts, the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the claimants in MACP No. 13 of 04.01.2014/12.04.2016 titled as Neelam Devi etc. Vs. Sandeep etc. stands modified in favour of the claimants and against the respondents in MACP case.