Back
2018 Supreme(All) 2284
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Ajit Kumar, J.
Smt. Kiran Devi and Others – Appellants
Versus
Pursottam Singh and Anr. – Respondents
First Appeal From Order Defective No. 1294 of 2015
Decided On : 24-07-2018
For the Appellant : Ram Singh
For the Respondent: Ajay Kumar Mishra, Pawan Kumar Singh
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claim Act,1988 – under Section 173 – Appeal filed by claimants for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by Act – Held, if deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only mother would considered to dependant, and 50% would treated as personal and living expenses of bachelor and 50% as contribution to family,where family of bachelor is large and dependent on income of deceased, as in case where he has widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third, compensation awarded to appellants under order of Tribunal is accordingly enhanced and award stands modified to extent indicated herein above – Writ petition allowed. (Para 21,32)
Facts of the case:
Appeal filed by claimants for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by Act.
Findings of the court:
If deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only mother would considered to dependant, and 50% would treated as personal and living expenses of bachelor and 50% as contribution to family, where family of bachelor is large and dependent on income of deceased, as in case where he has widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third, compensation awarded to appellants under order of Tribunal is accordingly enhanced and award stands modified to extent indicated herein above.
Result : Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 317284 of 2015)
Cause shown for delay in filing the appeal is sufficient to condone the delay.
Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Application is allowed.
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
2. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the claimants/appellants for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Nagar vide award dated 30.09.2014 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1095 of 2011, Smt. Kiran Devi and others vs. Pursottam Singh & others.
3. Briefly stating deceased Awadhesh Kumar died in a road accident in question on 30.09.2011 and is survived by his widow, major sons, mother and father.
4. The dependents set up a claim on account of accidental death of the deceased by moving a motor accident claim petition. The Tribunal framed various issues and found them entitled for compensation. On the question of quantum of compensation, issue no. 5 was framed and the Tribunal in the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased, assessed the income as Rs. 36,000/-per annum in view of the law laid down in Laxmi Devi & others v. Mohammad Tabbar & Another (2008) 12 SCC 165, though it has come to be proved on record that he was working as a salesman at Fatehpur Petroleum Corporation. The Tribunal has further proceeded to award towards consortium Rs. 10,000/-, funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/-and loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- and thus, in total a sum of Rs. 3,37,000/-was awarded along with simple rate of interest @ 7%. The Tribunal then, while computing the income of the deceased, made 1/3rd deduction from the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased.
5. The argument advanced is that monthly income of deceased was Rs. 5,000/-as he was salaried employee of Fatehpur Petroleum Corporation and so income could have been determined as Rs. 5,000/- for which documents were produced.
6. The next argument advanced is that towards the future prospects no compensation has been awarded, whereas, in the light of the judgment of Constitution Bench of Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 decided on 31.10.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 6961 of 2015, the compensation should have also been awarded towards future prospects. In the said judgment, learned counsel for the appellant argued that 25% has been prescribed towards future prospects considering the age of the victim, deceased.
7. The last argument advanced is that towards funeral expenses also, the amount awarded is very less and also the amount towards love and affection nothing has been awarded.
8. On the question of determination of income, I find that appellants failed to prove any definite salary drawn by the deceased. The salary register could not be proved. The most important document could have been employees insurance receipt to prove monthly deduction from salary but it was not brought on record. The statement that no deduction was being made towards employees insurance goes against the claimants especially when it is claimed that he was working in a petroleum corporation. The findings of Tribunal on assessment of income as Rs. 36,000/- per annum can not be faulted with.
9. Now coming to the aspect of future prospects and claim of compensation in that head for those who are self employed. This issue is no more res integra. The Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) vide paras 56 and 57 has held thus:
“56. The seminal issue is the fixation of future prospects in cases of deceased who is self-employed 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 no
