Uma Haldia v. Vijay Mala

2. The MAC Appeals No.56 of 2009 and 58 of 2009 were filed by appellant Uma Haldia, who is the mother of deceased Sandeep Halciia and mother-in-law of Priyanka, both whom died in the accident which took place between a car in which they were travelling and a bus. The said car was being driven by Veerpal Singh v/ho also died in the said accident. The MAC Appeal No.57 of 2009 is filed by appellant Vikay Mala and other legal representatives'of deceased Veerpal Singh.

3. In the impugned award, the Tribunal awa.rded a compensation of T[8],56,900/- to appellant Uma Haldia on account of death of her son Sandeep Haldia. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased as his last salary of t8100/- per month which he was getting as sales representative from a shop. U3'd of his income was deducted on account of his personal living expenses. Applying'a multiplier of 13, the loss of dependency was calculated as T[8],42,400i-. The Tribunal also awarded a compensatiori of t[2],000/- towards funeral expenses and MAC APPEAL Nos.56/2009,57/2009 & 58/2009 L I -l t12,500/- on account of loss of estate and love and affection and thereby awarded total compensation of t[8],56,900/-.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants argued on three coUnts,

(i) the income of the deceased was taken as t8100/- per month without making any provisions and consideration for future prospects of the deceased; (ii) instead of l/3rd, the dedttction towards personal and living expenses of deceasuO' orght to have been U4th and (iii) awarding of t12,500/- on account of loss of estate and love and affection was o11 lower side. Per contra, learirecl counsel for the respondent contended that the deceased was in a private job having no certainty of cor'ltinued employm.ent and salary hike and thus he being in an unstable private job, there was no Scope of consideration for future prospects of increase ct his income in view of law laid dcwn by the Supr-eme Court in Saria Verma and Others v Dethi Transparf Corporation and Another [2009 INDLAW SC 488] case. He also submitted that since the deceased was married and in due course of time, he would have raised his own family and thus under certain obligations to maintain his family and'in that eventualiiy, the dependency of the appellant would harre been considerably decreased. He submitted that instead of "\/3'd, one half of MAC APPEAL Nos.56/20A[9], 57/2009 & 58/2009.; '' ' r-'-;.-' "-'?i.' Page.[3] of 8 I ), f', the income of the deceased was personal and living expenses. liable to be deducted as towards his

5. There is no dispute with regard to the factthatthe deceased was in an unstable private job. The learned Tribunal has rightly discussed the aspect of income of deceased includinE llRA which he was getting' Keeping in view the nature of his job, the last drawn salary qf the deceased was rightly taken as the basis for calculating his income and the compensation that may be payable to the appellant' With regard to the plea of learned counsel for the respondent tlrat instead of U3'o, one half of his income ought to have been taken towards his personal and living expenses, I do not think ii appropriate to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Tribunal in this regarcl'

6. Learned Tribunal has also rightly applied the muliiplier of 13 keeping in view the age of the appellant as 47. There is no illegality or infirmity in the award of the Tribunal in this regard. However, it is seen that ihe aurard of compensation of t12,500/- on account of loss of estate and love and affection was on lower side. The deceased being the only son of appellant, a sum of T50,000/- is deemed to be just and appropriate on account of loss of estate anci love and affection. Consequently, while maintaining the compensation of T[8],42,400/- on account of loss of dependency and t[2],000/- on acccunt of funeral MAC APPEAL Nos.s6/2009, s7/2009 & 58/2009.& \ -f, expenses,asumof<50,000i-isawardedascompensationonaccount of loss of estate and love and affection,. As a result of tlris' the appellant would be entitled to additional sum of t37,500/-' The said amount is directed to be paid by the respondent/insurance company within 30 days from today and thereafter along lvith interest @7'5% per annum to the aPPellant'

7. Insofar as MAC Appeal 58 of 2009 is concerned which has been preferred by the appe|lant, compensation of <3,44,736l- was awarded by the Tribunal vide the'impugned award. Priyanka was married and aged about 19 years. The Tribunal awarded compensation taking the minimum \I/ages of an unski|led person as t3271-l- per month. He deciucted 1/3rd of her income towards personal living expenses and app|iedamultip|ierof16andfurtherawardedasumofT[2],000/towards funeral expenses and T[2],500/- towards loss of estate' Learned courrsel for the appellairt submitted that the Tribunal has not taken into.account the future prospects regarding increased minimttm wages' on the other hand, learned counset for the respondent/ insurance company submitted that the deceased was daughter-in-law of the appellant and.that the appellant cannot be said to be dependent on her' He submitted that 50% of her wages ought to have been deducted towarcls her personal living expenses. Thei'e is no dispute'that the appellant could not be said to be,Jependent upon her claughter-in-lalv, the deceased Priyanka. However, it coulcl not be denied that the appeliant was living. along with his deceased son and daughter-in-law. as a family member' |nsuchcircumstances,whatistobeSeenastowhetherthe MAC APPEAL Nos.56/2009, 57/2009 & 58/2009 Poge 5 af 8 + \ { compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and appropriate' In the given facts and circumstances, I do not see any illegality or perversity in the Tribunal's award awarding a compensation of <I,28,752l- taking the income based on minimum wages at7327Ll- per month. However, on the other hand, I find tirat the compensation on account of funeral expenses @. T[2],000/- seems to be on the lower side and in the present state of affairs, a sum of t15.000/- on account of funeral expenses is found to be just and reasonable. That being so, the appellant is entitled to additional sum of T13,000/- on account of funeral expenses, which shall be paid by respondent/ insurance company to the appellant u-tithin 30 days from today and thereafter with interest @ 7 '5o/o per annum.

8. Insofar as MAC Appeal lJo.57 of 2009 is concerned, the same is preferred by Smt. Vijay Mala, widcw of cieceased Veerpal who was driver of the car which met with the accident. The deceased was stated to be aged about 27 years. Besides the appellant Smt. Vijay Mala, tlte deceased also lrad one minor daughter and a minor son and also parents. The deceased was stated to be working as a property dealer. The Tribunal had taken note of income tax returns of the deceased of the years 2OO3-O[4],2004-05 and 2005-06. The income of the deceased of these years seemed to have increased from {70,820/- (assessment year 2003-04) to T[1],24,550/- (assessment year 2005-06). The Tribunal had taken the last income of 7!,24,550/- of deceased as his annual income and after making deduction of U3'd towards his personal and living expenses applied a multiplier of 18 and thereby arrived at a figure of {14,94,5941- as compensation on account of loss of dependency.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted'that keeping in,:. ''t. view the inconre of the'deceased, the future'prospects"of increase had to be iaken into constderation and trttier ttrat ihe ltiruro or { compensation of {12;500/- on account of loss of.estateland loVe and i' I affection \4/as on extremely lower side.. He also submitted that'.keeping. ):i.l in view.the nr:mber of legal heirs left by'Lhe cleceased, 1/4.th of his income ought to have.P"fn.5tediuiteo towar'ds Jrlt 1,"'"u: and lierso_nal expenses. On the other.hiind, learned counsel foi*-the insurahce I,,i., r. company fairly conceded,that keeping in view the nLmbe;rgf legal ': ' ' ' i""' ') representatives left behind by the deceased, instead of 1/3rd of...1'' '',."j,,' ),. t il. -i, i.-.l' '. decjuction towards living and personal expensgs, ol the deceasecj, U4th I..:'.'1,,.',. l,i,..;i,,'il i;i]:,. thereof ouglrt to have' been.rdecjucted, He also submitted'iihat tlle.: i;t irli,':;:rt;..l i,'r", 'i t '."1iii., learned Tribunal has ricthtl"v talcen note of thil'last income as th"e basis '- " -.'lii' i;i li'';.1, ',':";t;,', I i ' ' 'i t',, for arriving at a compensatioil Sihce.ttibre iwis ho certainty of future.: ';,.' 'I ' i' prospects or Increase of income of deteased.

10. rlrere is no di'spr," *jio," o".uur[4] $i;l.ni"insj a ouiiness ot _,,,[1] r.i,,.,.,.! ii,.;r i.;-l i,t;. property dealing anO it''is is a'comirron knowledgoil'lat the incorhe fronr;,1..,,.,.r ';l i'"ii'i-i'r _. r;!'.::t'"1" this business is always flurctdaiing and cannot'be-Lertain every tirne. I i"-,L '1.,r'! '..' '.,.,. t.:,: -'- There is always the ilossibility.of no ipcbme,or.dec;ease in'incQme and arso the possinitity-"t.;.iir r.or" iq,',4'i;'atso possii;i,,u.njt: t. r, r l,, 1,. ",,,.r;.,._ 1...-.1_r',. there may be'no inccrgre.at all at. any point.o[ tittlg in this business..Keepins irr vieul,ne oiiO";;"-6." ot unco.iqir,i;i + rir";,,; nl;1q"..r, ' ':ri j; t. u i I., ':' j',!'.:'., ', '. {t.r. }l 'r:' ' '.. the Tribunal has riglrtly'tal<ei[1] last.income as to be the.iricome..of the -' 't''' !"':' i., deceased for thp purpo-se,'of calculating the compensation. I do'nbt see NIAC APPEAL Nos.56/2009, 57/2009 A SA/ZOOS Page.[7] of 8 1i r 1t any infirmity or perversity in this regard. Keeping in viewthe numberof LRs left behind by the deceased, Ll4th of his income would be deductable as towards his living and personal expenses. In this view of the matter, a sum of {31, l37l- would be deductable as towards his personal and living expenses being 1i4th of his income. A balance of T93,413/- would the annual dependency loss of the aopellants' There is no dispute with regard to the multiplier of L[8] applied by the Tribunal. That being so, the annual dependency loss of appellants comes to {16,81,43 4l- (g34I3x18), Consequently, compensation of {14,94, 5g4l' as awarded by the Tribunal on account of loss of dependencv is raised to T16,81,4341-. The award of compensation of T12,500/- on account of loss of estate and love and affection is also seen to be on lower side. Keeping in view the age of deceased and the number of dependents/LRs left by the deceased a sum of t50,000/- is found to be just and appropriate on lhis account. Consequently, compensation of t12,500/- awar-ded on this couttt is raised to T50,000/-. The appellant would be entitied to enhanced amount of ccmpensation in terms of above order within 30 days from today by respondent/ insurance cornpany and thereafter with interest @ 7.5o/o per annum.

11. All the above three appeals stand disposetl on above terms. Septernber L[6],2OLI rd M.L. MEHTA UUDGE)