POINT DECIDED
Applicability of judgment of Apex Court delivered after the date of accident – Even though the accident took place long ago the ratio in Sarla Verma's case will apply to the pending appeals regardless that the judgment was delivered much after the date of accident.

RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by claimants aggrieved by award dated 26.09.1997 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Behror, Alwar, in MAC Case No.24/1994, by which learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- to them in a death claim.

2. Learned counsel for appellants has raised two fold arguments; one is that deceased at relevant point of time was 44 years of age and, as per judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), learned Tribunal should have applied multiplier of 14 instead of 8. Second contention is that according to that very judgment of the Supreme Court, appellants should have been granted benefit of future prospects because deceased was serving as Junior Engineer in erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board and he had stable job and salaried income with prospects of increase by addition of increments and promotion as well as benefit of pay revisions and, therefore, 30% should be added to assessed monthly income of deceased on the head of future prospects

3. Learned counsel for respondents opposed appeal and argued that judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, cannot be applied to facts of this case where accident took place long ago on 01.02.1994, therefore, learned Tribunal was justified in applying multiplier of 8 and not awarding any compensation for future prospects. Learned counsel further argued that Statutory provisions clearly indicate that compensation must be “just” and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not be a pittance and in this case the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable and should not be interfered with.

4. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the view that even though the accident took place on 01.02.1994, the ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, which was rendered in the year 2009, would apply to this pending appeal regardless that said judgment was delivered much after the date of accident in present case.

5. Argument of learned counsel for appellants that as per judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, multiplier of 14 should be applied instead of 8, deserves acceptance. In view of that very judgment of the Supreme Court, claimants are also entitled to benefit of future prospects. In view of number of dependents, which are three, learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd for own expenses of deceased. Learned Tribunal has assessed monthly income of deceased at Rs.5,803/-. Adding thereto 30% future prospects, it would become Rs.7544/-. After deducting 1/3rd for own expenses of deceased, monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs.5029/-. Calculating thus, compensation under head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.8,44,872/- (5029x12x14). Compensation of Rs.11,000/- under non-pecuniary heads is maintained.

6. Appellants thus be entitled to receive a sum of Rs.8,55,872/- (Rupees eight lac fifty five thousand eight hundred seventy two) (844872+11000), as total compensation. Appellants would be entitled for interest at the rate of 6% on enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of claim petition till actual payment thereof. The amount of income-tax shall be deducted and remitted to Income-tax Department subject to assessment made by assessing authority. The appellants shall, for that purpose, be issued TDS certificate. Compliance of the order be made within three months.

The appeal accordingly stands partly allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document