Kesar Ali & Anr. v. Santosh Kumar & Ors.

1. This appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 20.09.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’) passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (South East-01), Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in Suit No.4436/2016, titled Kesar Ali & Anr. v. Santosh Kumar & Ors..

2. The limited challenge of the appellants, who were the claimants before the learned Tribunal, is on the multiplier of 13 being applied by the learned Tribunal for determining the loss of dependency; and on future prospects in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, having not been granted by the learned Tribunal.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the age of the mother of the deceased, that is, the appellant no.2 herein, for determining the multiplier to be applied. He, however, does not dispute that Future Prospects, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), should have been awarded in favour of the appellants.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

5. In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Supreme Court has inter-alia held as under: “59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.”

6. In view of the above, the learned Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier based on the age of the mother of the deceased rather than on the age of the deceased. The Impugned Award, to this extent, cannot be sustained.

7. In the present case, the deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of the accident. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (SMT) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, as approved by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the multiplier to be adopted would be

18. It is ordered accordingly. The Impugned Award shall stand modified to this extent.

8. As far as the future prospects are concerned, in Pranay Sethi (supra), the Supreme Court 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.”

9. As the deceased was licensed as a conductor and was aged about 24 years, 40% of his income should have been added towards future prospects. It is ordered accordingly.

10. In view of the above, the compensation payable by the respondent no.3 to the appellants on account of Loss of Dependency is re-determined and is enhanced, as under: S.No. Heads Amounts

1. Loss of Dependency = (10,998 x 140/100) x 12 x 18 x 1/2 Rs.16,62,897.60

2. Loss of Dependency Awarded by the learned Tribunal (Rs.8,57,844.00) Total Enhanced Amount (1-2) Rs.8,05,053.60

11. The respondent no.3 shall deposit the compensation amount, if not already deposited, with the learned Tribunal as re-determined by this order, alongwith interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal by its Impugned Award, within a period of six weeks from today.