Manju Singh v. Naim Khan & Ors.

1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by order dated 4th March 2017 passed by the MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘MACT’) in MACT No.335/2015/ New Suit No. 356819/16 whereby an award of Rs.10,57,064/along with interest @ 9% per annum.

2. The matter relates to an accident that occurred on 15th November 2014, at about 11:35 PM when Rajat Pratap Singh/ deceased was driving a Maruti car bearing registration no. DL-2CAH-3767 from I.S.B.T., Kashmere Gate towards I.T.O. with two other passengers. The car collided with a truck bearing registration no. HR-55T-4920 wrongly parked in the middle of the road without any indicator or parking lights on. Due to the impact, all occupants sustained injuries and Rajat Pratap Singh was declared brought dead when taken to the Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi. FIR was registered and chargesheet and criminal proceedings were initiated. Claim petition was filed by the mother of deceased.

3. The deceased was 26 years of age at the time of the accident. The MACT held the notional income at Rs.10,487/- per month basis the minimum wages of a skilled worker.

4. Mr. S.N. Parashar, counsel for claimant, states that in calculating the loss of dependency, the MACT did not award either future prospect which ought to have been awarded at 40% considering the age of deceased at 26 years of age. Further, a multiplier of ‘11’ was wrongly applied based on the age of the mother of the deceased.

5. Needless to emphasise that on both these issues, the compensation has to be aligned with the principles enunciated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC

121.

6. Reliance can be placed on the judgement of Pranay Sethi (supra) wherein the Supreme Court with respect to future prospects for fixed salary and self-employed persons. The Supreme Court noted as under:

7. In the present case, applying the principle laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) this Court is of the view that the MACT erred in not awarding any amount towards future prospects. The deceased was 26 years of age, accordingly an addition of 40% towards future prospects is liable granted.

8. Further, reliance can be placed on the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra) wherein Supreme Court held that multiplier is to be ascertained based on the age of the deceased. The Court noted as under: “19…. Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased…” (emphasis supplied)

9. In the present case, applying the principle enunciated in Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier has to be determined with reference to the age of the deceased and not the dependents. Since the deceased was 26 years of age, the application of multiplier 11 based on the age of the mother is erroneous and liable to be corrected. Accordingly, the multiplier of 17 has to be applied considering the age of the deceased.

10. Conventional heads such as loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses are also to be aligned in terms of Pranay Sethi (supra). Compensation awarded under the head of loss of love and affection shall be nil, in view of the law laid down in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780.

11. The revised compensation is as under: S.no. Heads of Compensation Awarded by the Tribunal Awarded by this Court

1. Loss of income per month (A) Rs. 10,478/- Rs. 10,478/-