Siyaram Patel And ORS. v. Neeraj Singh Chouhan And ANR.
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 446 of 2013 {Arising out of order dated 04.03.2013 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 48 of 2012}
1. Siyaram Patel, S/o Mehattar Patel, Caste - Marar, aged about 68 years.
2. Smt. Shanti Bai, W/o Siyaram Patel, Caste -Marar, aged about 55 years.
3. Ku. Deepti, D/o Siyaram Patel, Caste - Marar, aged about 15 years (Minor) through natural guardian Smt. Shanti Bai, W/o Siyaram Patel. All are resident of Village Jhalmala, Police Station, Tahsil and District - Balod (C.G.) ---- Appellants
Versus
1. Neeraj Singh Chouhan, S/o Late Shri D.K. Chouhan, aged about 35 years, R/o In front of Congress Bhawan, Rajnandgaon Road, Balod, District - Balod (C.G.) (Owner of vehicle truck no. C.G. 04 JA/7604)
2. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Office, Near Vanijya Bhawan, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer of vehicle truck no. C.G. 04 JA/7604) ---- Respondents For Appellants :
Shri B.P. Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 2 :
Shri Deepak Gupta, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board Per P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice 21.05.2020 1.
Inadequacy of compensation ordered by the Tribunal in respect of the death of the son/sibling made the Appellants herein (parents and minor sister respectively) to approach this Court by filing this appeal. 2.
The sequence of events is as follows: the accident occurred on 13.02.2012 at about 6.00 am. The deceased Prakash Kumar Patel was proceeding on his
Motorcycle bearing No. TVS XL-C.G.-07-AA-2532. While so, he was knocked down by the Truck bearing No. C.G. 04-JA-7604 owned by the 1 st Respondent and insured by the 2nd Respondent, causing fatal injuries ultimately leading to his death. This claim petition preferred by the dependents as aforesaid, was sought to be contested from the part of the Respondents. Issuance of policy in favour of the Truck was virtually conceded. After appreciating the materials on record, in the light of the pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was solely because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the truck. A notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum was taken for the purpose of working out the dependency compensation. Amounts were awarded under different heads; such as loss of dependency (adopting multiplier of 18) Rs.
1,35,000/-, loss of estate Rs. 5,000/-, funeral expense Rs. 5,000/-, loss of love and affection Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. 5,000/- each) thus, granting a total compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/-. The liability was fastened on the shoulders of the Insurance Company. The quantum, according to the Appellants, is on the lower side and hence sought to be enhanced by this Court. 3.
We heard Shri B.P. Singh, the learned counsel for the Appellants and Shri Deepak Gupta, the learned counsel representing the Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company.
4.
The learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the deceased was of 18 years and was sporting a bike of his own. He was also engaged in the trade of vegetables apart from his studies and that the Tribunal was not justified in taking a notional income of just Rs. 15,000/- per annum to work out the compensation. It is also pointed out that the deduction of 50% towards the 'personal expenses' was not correct and proper. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent/Insurance Company submits that, by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transportation
Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, in the case of a deceased bachelor, the contribution to the family has to be reckoned only as 50% and hence the Tribunal done it correctly. It is further pointed out that, since the deceased was stated as going for tuition at the time of accident, he was only a student and hence the fixation of annual income does not warrant any interference.
5.
Fixation of notional annual income as Rs. 15,000/- was firstly introduced in the second schedule to the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 with effect from 14.11.1994, when the Act was amended. The accident in the present case had occurred in the year 2012 (on 13.02.2012) that is, after a period of 18 years. Even if the deceased was a student, it is not a disputed fact that he had crossed 18 years, attaining majority and hence an able bodied youth who could get himself engaged him in any manual job to have earned move at the prevailing daily wage rate, since the accident was in the year 2012. 6.
Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is much on the lower side and it requires to be enhanced to Rs. 3,000/- per month. Of course, in tune with the decision taken by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's (supra) and by the Constitution Bench in the National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi & Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, we find it appropriate to add 'future prospects' as well, to an extent of 40%, the deceased being a person without a fixed income and a man below 40 years. In the said circumstance, the monthly income will become Rs. 3,000 + 3,000 x 40/100 = Rs. 4,200/-. The appropriate multiplier to be taken is '18' and the monthly contribution to the family is to be reckoned as 50% with the said figures in hand, the loss of dependency is to be reworked as Rs. 4,200 x 12 x 50/100 x 18 = Rs. 4,53,600/-. After giving credit to sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the balance comes to
Rs. 3,18,600/-. By virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in the decisions cited above, the claimants are entitled to get amounts under the conventional heads such as loss of estate, funeral expenses and also towards loss of consortium/love & affection to the extent as prescribed therein. 7.
In the instant case, loss of estate has been compensated only to an extent of Rs. 5,000/- and so goes the funeral expenses fixed at Rs. 5,000/-. Both the above heads are required to be enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- thus, carrying a differential portion to be awarded as Rs. 10,000/- each. Regarding the loss of consortium, it is true that the deceased was a bachelor of 18 years. The scope of 'Consortium' was subsequently explained by the Apex Court (w.r.t. the decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra)), as per the verdict in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 that there are 'three' types of consortium: one is 'Spousal Consortium', the other one is 'Parental Consortium' and the third one is 'Filial Consortium'.
Though there is no scope for any spousal consortium, the parents are entitled to get the 'Filial Consortium' because of the demise of the deceased son to the extent of Rs. 40,000/-. It is awarded accordingly. Similarly, the 3rd Appellant/claimant is the minor sister who has suffered the loss towards the love and affection and as such, this requires to be compensated to an appropriate extent. Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000/- each to the 3 claimants together, totaling a sum of Rs. 15,000/-. We are of the view that this has to be enhanced to Rs. 40,000/-, thus resulting in a balance of Rs. 25,000/- as well. It is also awarded accordingly. No amount has been awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering. Even if it is taken that the death was instantaneous, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.
10,000/- can be awarded under this circumstance head as well. It is ordered accordingly. Thus, the total balance compensation payable comes to Rs. 4,13,600/- (Four lakhs thirteen thousand six hundred).
8.
The said compensation is to be paid with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the accident till the deposit. Since the policy is admitted, we direct the 2nd Respondent/Insurance Company to remit the said amount with interest as aforesaid, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Appeal stands allowed to the said extent.
Sd/- Sd/- (P. R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge Brijmohan