2011 (2) UAD 146
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly
Civil Appeal No. 1440 of 2011
SUNIL SHARMA & ORS. – Appellants
Versus
BACHITAR SINGH & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 07.02.2011
(B) Claim for Compensation — Deduction for Personal Expenses — Held that where the deceased was married — The deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) — Where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) — And where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 or exceeds 6, one-fifth (1/5th). (Paras 12, 13)
(C) Revision in Pay Scale — A 'rule of thumb' with respect to addition in income due to future prospects — Held that the addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years.
(Paras 15, 16)
(D) Motor Accident — Claim for compensation — In fatal motor accidents, some amount must always be awarded by way of compensation for loss of love and affection and consortium — Of course it is impossible to compensate for the loss of a life — Rs. 25,000/- for loss of love and affection and consortium awarded. (Paras 16, 17)
(E) Computation of Compensation in instant case — Annual income Assessed at Rs. 1,84,212.- — Deduction for Personal Expenses Rs. 1,22,800/- — Revision in Pay Scale Rs. 1,59,640/- — Loss of love and affection and consortium Rs. 25,000/- — Applying Multiplier of 14 — Therefore, total compensation Rs. 22,59,966/- rounded off to Rs. 22,60,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. payable from date of filing claim petition — Awarded. (Paras 8 to 15, 16 to 18)
¼v½ eksVj okgu vf/fku;e] 1988] /kkjk 166 & eksVj nq?kZVuk ds dkj.k izfrdj ds nkos esa izfrdj fu/kkZj.k gsrq fopkj djus ;ksX; rF; & vk; dh x.kuk & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k fd lsokfuo`fÙk ykHk] xzsP;qVh esa va'knku] Lo;a vkSj ifjokj ds okLrs fpfdRlk ikWfylh dk chek] vkSj f'k{kk othQk ifjokj ds lnL;ksa ds okLrs ykHkdkjh Fks & vkxs fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k fd izR;sd dsl dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa vkSj rF;ksa dks /;ku esa j[kdj U;k;ksfpr izfrdj dk vkadyu fd;k tkuk pkfg, & vkSj iw.kZ osru iSdst ij fopkj fd;s tkus dk vk/kkj og gS tks e`rd dh e`R;q ds dkj.k vkfJrksa }kjk xaok fn;k x;k gS & ifjokj dh vk; esa Hkfo"; dh gkfu ds okLrs ;g izfrdj ds :i esa gS vkSj og èkujkf'k tks e`rd dks mlds fu;ksDrk }kjk ^idZ* ds :i esa Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk Fkk] dks mldh ekfld vk; esa tksM+k tkuk Fkk vkSj eagxkbZ HkÙkk vkSj edku fdjk;k HkÙkk e`rd dh vk; esa tksM+k tkuk pkfg, FkkA ¼izLrj 8 ls 12½
¼c½ izfrdj dk nkok & O;fDrxr [kpks± ds fy, dVkSrh & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k tcfd e`rd fookfgr Fkk rks e`rd ds O;fDrxr vkSj jgu lgu lEcfU/kr [kpsZ 1@3 gksus pkfg, tcfd vkfJr ifjokjh; lnL;ksa dh la[;k 2 ls 3 gS rks 1@4 vkSj tgk¡ ij vkfJr ifjokjh; lnL; la[;k 4 ls 6 gS ;k 6 ls vf/kd gS rks 1@5A
¼izLrj 12] 13½
¼l½ osrueku dk iqujh{k.k & Hkfo"; ds okLrs vk; esa c<+ksÙkjh ds okLrs ^:y vkQ FkEc* izpfyr gS & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k fd 30 izfr'kr dh c<+ksÙkjh ml n'kk esa dh tkuh pkfg, ;fn e`rd dh vk;q 40 ls 50 o"kZ dh gSA ¼izLrj 15] 16½
¼n½ eksVj nq?kZVuk ds lEcU/k esa izfrdj dk nkok & xaHkhj eksVj nq?kZVuk esa dqN jkf'k izse vkSj lkSgknZ vkSj lgthou dh gkfu ds okLrs izfrdj ds :i esa iznku dh tkuh pkfg, & okLro esa thou dh gkfu dk izfrdj pqdkuk vlaHko gSA ¼izLrj 16] 17½
¼;½ izLrqr dsl esa izfrdj dh x.kuk & okf"kZd vk; dh x.kuk #- 1]84]212@& dh xbZ & O;fDrxr [kpks± ds okLrs dVkSrh #- 1]22]800@&] osru eku ds iqujh{k.k ls #- 1]59]640@&] izse lkSgknZ ,oa lgthou dh gkfu ds okLrs #- 25]000@& ekuk x;k & 14 dk xq.kd yxkus ij dqy izfrdj #- 22]59]966@& gksrk gS ftls jkm.M djus ij #- 22]60]000@& gksrk gS tks 6 izfr'kr C;kt lfgr izfrdj nkok nk;j djus dh frfFk ls ns; gksxkA ¼izLrj 8 ls 15] 16 ls 18½
Ganguly, J. — Leave granted.
2. On 2.08.2006, around 4.40 PM, one Mrs. Sunita Sharma (aged 41 years) was returning to Panchkula from Chandigarh on her scooter, when the offending vehicle (a Tata 407 bearing registration no. HR-58-.5649) driven by the second respondent hit her and ran over her. She was declared dead when taken to hospital.
3. Legal heirs of the deceased, her husband and two children, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) claiming Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation, along with interest. @ 24%p.a.
4. MACT awarded total compensation of Rs.7,92,000/-. It calculated the same by arriving at gross salary of Rs.14,541/- (based on salary certificate provided by Haryana Women Development Corporation Ltd.), the employer of Mrs. Sunita Sharma. From the same, Rs.1310/- was deducted on various accounts- she was an income tax assessee, was paid HRA amounting to Rs. 885/-, CCA Rs. 200 and medical allowance Rs. 250/-. MACT concluded that the sums could not be taken into account in the total salary of Sunita. Thus, her total carry home salary was taken to be Rs.10,000/- (annual equivalent being Rs.1,20,000/-). A deduction of 40% was made for personal expenses, as she was a working woman and was also maintaining a scooter.
Thus, dependency was calculated at Rs. 72,000/-, to which a multiplier of 11 was applied. Hence, compensation was calculated at Rs. 7,92,000 along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
5. Aggrieved by the award of MACT, the claimants filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for enhancement of compensation. The High Court applied the multiplier of 14, instead of 11 applied by MACT. The High Court took annual dependency same as that calculated by MACT, i.e. Rs.72,000. Accordingly, High Court awarded Rs. 2,16,000/- over and above what was awarded by MACT.
6. Stilt aggrieved, the claimants filed the present appeal before this Court. The claimants, appellants in the present appeal, contended that:
a. MACT should not have deducted HRA, CCA, EPF Group Insurance-Scheme and computer advance from the income of the deceased and these deductions should not have been upheld by the High Court.
b. Deduction of 40% for personal expenses, which was upheld by the High Court, was not correct.
c. MACT and the High Court did not take into consideration the revision in pay scale of the deceased that came into force from January 2006 (before her death) while calculating her income.
d. High Court did not grant any compensation for loss of love and affection, consortium and expenses towards funeral rites of the deceased.
7. We have heard the parties and perused the evidence on record, along with the judgments of the Tribunal and High Court. We now proceed to deal with each point separately.
a. Computation of Income
8. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd, v. Indira Srivastava & Ors. [AIR 2008 SC 845], S.B. Sinha J, has observed that “The term `income’ has different connotations for different purposes. A court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. Loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monitory terms.” His Lordship also stated that if some facilities were being provided whereby the entire family stood to benefit, the same must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis of which the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants was required to be determined. This Court held that superannuation benefits, contributions towards gratuity, insurance of medical policy for self and family and education scholarship were beneficial to the members of the family. This Court clarified that by opining that ‘just compensation must be determined having r
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.