Gurinder Kaur Etc v. Angrej Sigh Etc
!!!!
"#$%&'#()"#)%&*+'#, --'..)%*, /, %0#'12$%0+)%&*+'#, ',-%&'%*,
! " #
$ 3 4 5 2 2/2 % &'() *+ $#%
,
$
-.- ) /0/ #%
$(1
2 ) 3 0 #/%4#5
$! ),+6$#2$%0+)*+#7 1.
This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 07.11.2002 for enhancement of compensation vide which a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- has been
awarded as compensation due to death of Sunder Singh in a motor vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle (Truck No.HR-01-A3345) (for short 'offending truck'), being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, which was owned by respondents No.2 and 3 and insured with respondent No.4.
! ! "
# ! !
$
!
%% #
& '() ))**+,
- -
!
'
..
/0(& + 1
23** 3* +3**104 4
! * ( & * 5 ( &
!
-
)-
)-
!
-
! !
.
6
%
-
!
0
#
0 /0( &
%#& '() ) **+,
& 0 .
# 7
!
! + ( & +)0 ! !
-
# 7
# .
# 7
( & + 0 ! # !
, ( & ,,)
'
!
8 - ! # & ,,)
7
1 /
! %
9
8
!""#$ %&''
( ) (
* ( (*(%&'' "
)
+ ) ( % &'' # +
( , , ) %&'
$ (
+ %&' -
* +
*
%&' # ( )
+ %&' # . / :
; %
&
(2
3)
2<
=
>0& *%
'! !
#
>0& +,%
-
0& 1 %
! 7 ! 0 ! !
2 / !
! %
!
0 !
& *
2 2 !
The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 10.
Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award is based on conjectures and surmises. The pleadings of the parties and evidence on file have not been appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation. Learned counsel further contended that from the evidence on file, it was established that deceased was running Mailk Dairy and he was also an agriculturist but his monthly income has been assessed as Rs.2400/- per month which is highly inadequate. Learned counsel further contended that deceased also owned around 41⁄2 acres of land as reflected in jamabandi for the year 1996-97 Ex.P11 but no amount has been added towards his managerial skills. No future prospects have been applied to the monthly income of the deceased while assessing the compensation. Deceased has left behind five dependents but one third of the amount has been deducted towards personal expenses whereas one fourth of the amount should have been deducted out of the monthly income to determine the loss of dependency. Learned counsel next contended that no
9 compensation has been awarded towards loss of consortium and loss of estate and funeral expenses have been awarded only to the tune of Rs.2,000/- which are also on the lower side and as such, the compensation is liable to be enhanced suitably. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon 2009(6) SCC 121- Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2017 (16) SCC 680-National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other, 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 333 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others and (2021) 11 SCC 780 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur.
11.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that the award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has been appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no interference in the same is thus called for.
12.
In order to prove their case, one of the claimants namely Gurinder Kaur has stepped into the witness box as PW4 who deposed that her husband Sunder Singh was 40 years of age who was matriculate as evident from matriculation certificate Ex.P2. He was an agriculturist and was also running a milk dairy. He had attended a course to run a dairy farm and she tendered the certificate in this regard Ex.P3. She deposed that her husband had taken loan from the Bank for running the dairy farm and has already repaid the loan to State Bank of Patiala but the loan obtained from Rural Development Bank was still outstanding for which notice Ex.P4 has been received from the said Bank. She deposed that her husband was keeping 20/22 buffaloes and 50 kgs. Milk used to
: be milched at one time. She further stated that her husband also owned 7-8 acres of land and used to take another 7-8 acres of land on lease and he used to earn around Rs.30,000/- per month 13.
PW2 Sh. V.K. Yadav, Assistant Manager, State Bank of Patiala Cheeka Branch, stated that Sunder Singh son of Swaroop Singh had taken loan for running a dairy farm from their bank which has already been repaid and the said record has already been destroyed.
14.
From the evidence led by the petitioners, it is thus established that the deceased was a matriculate. He had also obtained training for running a dairy farm as is evident from certificate Ex.P3 and he also owned agricultural land measuring 371⁄2 kanals of land as is evident from jamabandi for the year 1996-97 Ex.P11. However, the version of the claimants that deceased used to earn Rs.30,000/- per month from the dairy farm and agriculture is not substantiated by any cogent and convincing evidence. In case, he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, he must have been paying income tax but no such record has been produced. No record of sale of milk too has been produced to show that he used to sell about 100 litres of milk daily.
Learned Tribunal also came to the conclusion that from the oral testimony of the claimant- Gurinder Kaur - PW4, it is not established that deceased used to earn Rs.30,000/- per month and I concur with the findings arrived at by the Tribunal and there is no reason to take a contrary view. However, it is not disputed that deceased was running a dairy farm and had also obtained training in this regard. While assessing his income, the Tribunal has held that even labourers used to earn Rs.
those days and since he was running a dairy farm, his income has been assessed as Rs.2400/- per month which in my opinion is on lower side. It cannot be expected that a rustic villager would be maintaining accounts for sale of milk or that the same would be available with his family after his sudden death and some amount of guess work thus has to be applied in assessing the monthly income of the deceased. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6152 of 2021 - Chandra alias Chander alias Chanda Ram and another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, decided vide judgment dated 1.10.2021 has held that merely because claimants are unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased is not a ground to discard the oral evidence. As such, the oral version of PW4- Gurinder Kaur cannot be brushed aside.
Accordingly, it can be assumed that deceased must be earning Rs.3,500/- per month from his dairy business. In addition to this, he also owned around 41⁄2 acres of land as established from jamabandi Ex.P11 and he must be managing the same and as such, some amount has to be added to his monthly income towards his managerial skills in managing the land. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2015(1) RCR (Civil) 625 - Smt. Neeta W/o Kallappa Kadolkar & Ors. vs The Divisional .Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur, has held that if a person was in agricultural occupation, the monthly income can be assessed at Rs.12,000/- per month i.e. beyond the minimum wages prevalent at the time of his death. The afore-said judgment has been followed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in FAO No.931 of 2021 - Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Santosh Devi decided vide judgment dated 28.7.2022. The accident in Smt. Neeta's case (supra), had taken place on 22.3.
; rendered on 13.1.2015. The minimum wages prevalent during those days were Rs.10,243/- and around Rs.2,000/- was added towards managerial skills for managing the land. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 816- K. Ramya and others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., while determining dependency on account of income from agricultural land has held that loss of dependency in such case has to be determined on the basis of loss of management capacity or efficiency. It was held that as a rule of prudence, computation of any individual's managerial skills should lie between 10% to 15% of the total agricultural income but the acceptable range can be increased in the light of specific circumstances and in this case, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- per annum was assessed as income on account of loss of managerial skills and future prospects were also applied.
15.
In the present case, deceased owned 37 1⁄2 kanals of land which he was managing himself besides running a dairy farm. He was 45 years of age and has left behind minor children, wife and aged mother. It can be assumed that he must be earning at least Rs.1 lakh per annum from 41⁄2 acres of land owned by him. After his death, there was none to look after the land except his wife and minor children and as such, around 15% of the total annual income has to be taken into consideration towards his managerial skills. From his dairy business, he was earning Rs.42,000/- per annum and by adding Rs.15,000/- towards managerial skills, his annual income comes to Rs.57,000/-. 16.
No future prospects have also been added to the income of the deceased. The date of birth of the deceased was 10.1.1956. The accident had
taken place on 7.12.2000 and as such, he was below 45 years of age. He was a self employed person and as such, 25% amount has to be added to his annual income towards future prospects in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and after adding the same, the annual income comes out to Rs.71,250/-. 17.
The petition in hand has been instituted by mother, wife and three minor children of the deceased. Accordingly, it is held that deceased has left behind 5 dependents. The Tribunal has deducted one third of the income towards personal expenses but 1/4rd of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and after deducting the same, the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.71,250/- - Rs.17,812/- = Rs.53,438/-.
18.
Since deceased was below 45 years of age, multiplier of 14 has to be applied as per guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma's case (supra) instead of multiplier of 15 applied by the Tribunal and after applying the same, the compensation on account of annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.7,48,132/-.
19.
In addition to this, claimant No.3-wife is held entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of consortium', Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral expenses', as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Likewise, claimants No.2 to 5 who are minor children and mother of deceased are also entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of 'loss of parental & filial consortium', in view of law laid down in Nanu Ram's case (supra) and
Satinder Kaur's case (supra), which takes the compensation to Rs.9,78,132/- (Rounded to Rs.9,78,500/-).
20.
Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants is assessed as under:- S.No.
Under Head Compensation awarded by the High Court 1.
Annual income of deceased Rs.57,000/- per annum 2.
Age of deceased Below 45 years 3.
Future prospects @ 25% Rs.71,250/- 4.
Number of dependents 5.
Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (1/4th) Rs.17,812/- 6.
Annual loss of dependency Rs.53,438/- 7.
Multiplier 8.
Compensation on account of Loss of dependency Rs.7,48,132/- 9.
Compensation under conventional heads Rs.70,000/- ( wife) Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each to mother and minor children of deceased) 10.
Total Compensation Rs.9,78,500/- 11.
Interest 9% 21.
Resultantly, the present appeal is partly accepted with costs and appellants/ claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.9,78,500/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.6,88,500/- (Rs.9,78,500/- - Rs.2,90,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal payable alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition i.e. 30.3.2001, till realization by respondents No.1, 2 and 4, jointly and severally, as already ordered by the Tribunal. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.75,000/- each be paid to claimants No.2 to 5 and remaining amount be paid to wife of deceased along with proportionate interest. ( ! !
0 !
! '
?
$ 4
@
A& ,*+
1 * 0 ! !
@/A - * 4
@A ! ),+6$#2$%0+)*+# "&0'
-#$. 7
#'%"
, +
7 7$ Whether Reportable Yes/No