Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 12.09.2023
RANVEER & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.S.N.Parashar, Adv.
Through: Mr.Pankaj Seth, Adv.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the Award dated 28.11.2016 (hereinafter referred to as the „Impugned Award‟) passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟) in MACP No.66 of 2016 titled Sh.Ranveer & Ors. v. Sh.Rakesh Chaudhary & Ors..
2. It is the case of the appellants that on 24.03.2015, Sh.Yogesh Kumar alongwith his cousin brother, Sh.Vipin, was going on a motorcycle driven by Sh.Vipin. At about 1.30 PM, when they reached Jaitpur Bhatta Golchakkar, a Maruti Wagon-R car bearing Registration No.UP-16AT-5871, being driven in rash and negligent manner by the respondent no.1 herein, hit the motorcycle with great force due to which they fell down and sustained injuries. The deceased Sh.Yogesh Kumar was taken to Kailash Hospital, Greater Noida, and from there, he was referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences Trauma Centre (AIIMS). He unfortunately expired on 02.04.2015 during the course of the treatment. The deceased was aged about 19 years and was a Bachelor. The appellants further claimed that the deceased was working as a Property Dealer at Aaya Nagar, Delhi and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month.
3. The learned Tribunal, however, held that since no document with regard to the employment and income of the deceased had been filed, the income of the deceased would be taken on the basis of minimum wages as per his educational qualification. As the deceased was studying in the 9th standard in the year 2010, his income was taken on the basis of minimum wages notified for a non-matriculate at the time of the accident, as Rs.9,542/- per month. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation on account of loss of dependency in favour of the appellants, considering the multiplier based on the age of the mother of the deceased, and deducting 50% towards the personal and living expenses, since the deceased was a bachelor.
MULTIPLIER
4. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in considering the multiplier based on the age of the mother of the deceased. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, he submits that the multiplier should have been considered based on the age of the deceased himself. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has also erred in not considering the future prospects on the income of the deceased while awarding the compensation.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that no fault can be found in the Impugned Award inasmuch as the deceased, being a Bachelor aged only 19 years, the multiplier is rightly considered on the basis of the age of the mother of the deceased. He, however, does not dispute that the future prospects should have been considered in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra).
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
7. In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Supreme Court has clarified that it is age of the deceased, which should be the basis for applying the multiplier as stipulated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (smt) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121. I may quote from the judgment as under: “59.[7] The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.”
8. In view of the above, the adoption of the multiplier based on the age of the mother of the deceased cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside. The compensation shall have to be determined by taking the age of the deceased at the time of the accident, which was 19 years. Therefore, a multiplier of 18 should have been adopted by the learned Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly.
FUTURE PROSPECTS
9. On the aspect of future prospects, the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has held as under:- “59.[3] While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.[4] In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.”
10. As the deceased was aged only 19 years and was claimed to be self-employed, an addition of 40% of his income should have been added towards future prospects. It is ordered accordingly.
11. In view of the above, the compensation payable to the appellants is re-determined as under:
1. Loss of Dependency (9542x1/2x12x13) = Rs.7,44,276/- (9542x1/2x12x18x140/100) = Rs.14,42,750.40/-
2. Loss of Love and Affection 1,00,000 1,00,000
3. Loss of Estate 10,000 10,000
4. Funeral Expenses 25,000 25,000 Total Rs.8,79,276/- Rs.15,77,750.40/- Enhanced Amount =Rs.6,98,474.40
INTEREST ON FUTURE PROSPECTS
12. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that interest should not be awarded on the future prospects. In support, he places reliance on the judgment dated 14.07.2023 of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in MAC. APP. No. 33/2022, titled National Insurance Company v. Mst.Aisha Bano & Ors..
13. I am unable to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
14. In Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court has held that the assessment of compensation, though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective; while it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards in ascertaining compensation, the same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. The Court laid down the facts that are needed to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in case of death as under:
15. The Supreme Court further held that to have uniformity and consistency, the Court should adopt the following methodology as under:
16. As far as future prospects is concerned, in Pranay Sethi (supra), it was observed as under:
56. The seminal issue is the fixation of future prospects in cases of deceased who are selfemployed or on a fixed salary. Sarla Verma (supra) has carved out an exception permitting the claimants to bring materials on record to get the benefit of addition of future prospects. It has not, per se, allowed any future prospects in respect of the said category.
57. Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are disposed to think when we accept the principle of standardisation, there is really no rationale not to apply the said principle to the self-employed or a person who is on a fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty. But to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. It is because the criterion of distinction between the two in that event would be certainty on the one hand and staticness on the other. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect a self-employed person; and that apart there is always an incessant effort to enhance one’s income for sustenance. The purchasing capacity of a salaried person on permanent job when increases because of grant of increments and pay revision or for some other change in service conditions, there is always a competing attitude in the private sector to enhance the salary to get better efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a person who is self-employed is bound to garner his resources and raise his charges/fees so that he can live with same facilities. To have the perception that he is likely to remain static and his income to remain stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude which always intends to live with dynamism and move and change with the time. Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty in addition of future prospects to the existing income unlike in the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said perception does not really deserve acceptance. We are inclined to think that there can be some degree of difference as regards the percentage that is meant for or applied to in respect of the legal representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased who had a permanent job than a person who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. But not to apply the principle of standardisation on the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. And, therefore, degree-test is imperative. Unless the degree-test is applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has to have the inbuilt concept of percentage. Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable.
58. The controversy does not end here. The question still remains whether there should be no addition where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Sarla Verma thinks it appropriate not to add any amount and the same has been approved in Reshma Kumari. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that salary does not remain the same. When a person is in a permanent job, there is always an enhancement due to one reason or the other. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self-employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:xxxxx 59.[3] While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.[4] In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.”
17. From the above, it is evident that compensation is determined on standardised formula stipulated by the Supreme Court so that there is consistency and objectivity in the compensation awarded. Future Prospects is only an ingredient for determination of “just compensation”. Section 171 of the Act empowers the Tribunal to award interest on the Compensation amount. There is no reason to differentiate only a hypothetical ingredient of the formula that is used for purposes of computing the “just compensation” from award of interest on the whole of the compensation amount.
18. In view of the above, I respectfully disagree with the judgment of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir on this aspect.
19. The compensation amount awarded hereinabove shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition by the claimants before the learned Tribunal, that is, 09.09.2015, till realization of the amount.
20. The respondent no.3 shall deposit the enhanced amount with the learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today. The same shall be released in favour of the appellants in accordance with the Schedule of disbursal stipulated in the Impugned Award.
21. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
22. There shall be no order as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J SEPTEMBER 12, 2023 RN/ss