Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi v. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma & Anr.

6. After hearing the parties, the High Court affirmed the future income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- per month as determined by the Tribunal and deducted 50% towards personal expenses. It further held that the Tribunal had erred in considering the age of the deceased at the time of his death rather than the age of the parents for determination of multiplier, since Page 5 C.A. No. 8131-8132 of 2014 5 they are the claimants in the case on hand, as per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.1. Therefore, by applying the appropriate multiplier of 13, the High Court determined the loss of dependency at Rs.14,04,000/- as against Rs.23,04,000/- as considered by the Tribunal. After examining the facts, evidence produced on record and circumstances of the case, the High Court was of the view that the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased was higher than 20%, however, it affirmed the contributory negligence as determined by the Tribunal. Therefore, after 20% deduction towards contributory negligence and addition towards other heads, the High Court, by its impugned Judgment and order awarded a compensation under all heads of Rs.11,39,200/with 9% interest per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed these appeals. (2009)6 SCC 121 Page 6 C.A. No. 8131-8132 of 2014 6

7. It has been contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Mr. Fakriddin that the offending truck hit the two-wheeler from behind. As a result, the deceased fell down and his twowheeler was dragged by the offending truck up to a distance of about 25 feet. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal as well as the High Court towards contributory negligence of the deceased at 20% is uncalled for. Further it was contended that the High Court has reduced the compensation from Rs.18,59,200/- to Rs.11,39,200/- which is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza & Ors. Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service[2].

8. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the High Court has rightly reduced the compensation by deducting 50% for personal expenses of the deceased since he was unmarried at the time of his death and adopted a (2013) 9 SCR 882 Page 7 C.A. No. 8131-8132 of 2014 7 multiplier of 13 by considering the age of the parents as per the guidelines laid down by this Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra).

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In our considered view, the deceased was 19 years old and was pursuing his medical degree with good marks at the time of the accident. With respect to the future income of students pursuing professional courses we refer to Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.3, wherein this Court held as under:-

10. Further, the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in not following the principles laid down by this Court in M. Mansoor & Anr v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.[5] in awarding a meagre sum of just Rs.15,000/- under the heads of loss of love and affection. Accordingly, we award Rs.1,00,000/to the appellant towards the same.

11. With regard to the apportionment made by the Tribunal and the High Court, we are of the view, after considering the facts, evidence produced on record and circumstances of the case on hand, that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. The courts below have failed to examine the facts of the case on hand with respect to the opinion of this Court given in Juju Kuruvila & Ors. v. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors.[6] From the evidence produced on record, the twowheeler of the deceased was dragged up to a stretch 2013 (12) SCALE 324 (2013)9 SCC 166 Page 11 C.A. No. 8131-8132 of 2014 11 of about 20-25 feet on the road after the collision with the offending truck. We are of the considered view, that to be able to create this kind of enormous effect on the two-wheeler of the deceased, the offending truck must have been travelling at a fairly high speed and that its driver did not have sufficient control over his vehicle. The driver of the offending truck should have been aware that he was driving the heavy motor vehicle and taken sufficient caution. We do not see any direct evidence that shows negligence on the part of the deceased that led to the accident. Therefore, as per the principles laid down by this Court in the case referred to above in this aspect, the contributory negligence apportioned by the courts below on the part of the deceased is set aside.

12. The Tribunal and the High Court have further failed in awarding only Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses instead of Rs.25,000/- according to the principles laid down by this Court in Rajesh & Page 12 C.A. No. 8131-8132 of 2014 12 Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors.7. Hence, we award Rs.25,000/- towards the same.

13. In the result, the appellant shall be entitled to compensation under the following heads:. Loss of dependency Rs.26,00,000/-. Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/-. Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- TOTAL Rs.27,25,000/- Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellant by the respondent-Insurance Company will be Rs.27,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.

14. Accordingly, we allow these appeals in awarding Rs.27,25,000/- with interest @9% p.a. The respondent-Insurance Company shall either pay by way of demand draft in favour of the appellant or deposit the same with interest as awarded before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after

Page 13 C.A. No. 8131-8132 of 2014 13 deducting the amount already paid to the appellant, if any, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. No Costs. ……………………………………………………………………J. [V.GOPALA GOWDA] ……………………………………………………………………J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] New Delhi,