Apsana And Others v. Jamshed Khan And Others
Apsana and ors.
......Appellants vs.
Jamshed Khan and ors.
......Respondents !"#!$!%&!' (
( !"#%")"*)+!,!) ' -(
( ./" 0!0")' (
( Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No Whether full judgment is pronounced?
Yes ' 12 3(3 3 3
Present:
Mr. Rohit Rana, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
**** 3 3 ( 1.
The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 06.02.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimants to the tune of Rs.18,63,600/3 along with interest @6% per annum, on account of death of Aabid in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 07.08.2019. 2.
As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity. 3
32 32 3 3.
The learned counsel for the claimants3appellants contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced as per latest law.
4.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent3Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation, as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.
3224 3 6.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another 5
- 3*.%!,!"*% $!$
6, laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of the same are as under:3 "30
!"#$
%# !"&$
&' !"($
31)
* (+,
-
$ . /
*
32
(+,
(+,
* * * * * * 42. )
&$ 0
1 $ !2 !(%+ %!
%(
$
3 !4 %'#+
3 !'#!#(
3 !(#'&+
3 !&&!&(
3 !#&'(+
3 !!(!((
3 5 (''+
3 4'!'(
3 (''4+
7.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 5
3 6 has clarified the law under Sections 166, 1633A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the following aspects:3 (A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine multiplicand;
(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased; (C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier; (D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with escalation; (E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for different ages: with permanent job; self3employed or fixed salary. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:3 "52. 6 conventional heads
7/
8*
7 %(+++
7 !+++++
7 !+++++
7/
0 9
:
6
;
*
!(+++ 7 &++++ 7 !(+++
<
)
!+,
)
= = = = = 59.3)
(+,
/
&+
#+,
&+ (+
*
(+'+
!(,6
59.4*
$
&+,
&+
6 %(,
&+(+
!+,
(+'+
59.5.
#+#%0> ?
59.6.
0> @ &%/
59.7
59.87
7
!(+++7 &++++ 7 !(+++
!+,
A
8.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 9, !)!% / )$*% )+!
",. ):2;,; !0<$( )* , /; $=*=%* , =!%$5
3
6 after considering 3 %/ <!%, $*.% and % ) :3! =; 3*.% has settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant paras of the same are reproduced as under:3 B216 <
C 0 8
;
*
D D
D D D
D D D
)
%!! Spousal consortium
D
/ D %!% Parental consortium
D
D %!# Filial consortium
6
22
3 /
E
3 /
23 3>
6
*
C
6 6
- 24
D
D C 0 8*
7 &++++
9.
A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the deceased was 25 years old at the time of the accident. However, learned counsel committed an error in determining the age of the deceased as 30 years by placing reliance on the age of his wife as reflected in her Aadhaar card. The learned Tribunal further failed to appreciate that an Aadhaar card does not constitute conclusive proof of age. Moreover, the learned Tribunal also overlooked the age of the deceased as specifically recorded in the post3mortem report (Ex. P35), which is a contemporaneous and reliable medical document. As per the post3mortem report, the age of the deceased was assessed to be 25 years, and the same ought to have been accepted for the purpose of adjudication 10.
It is settled proposition of law as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sunita Vs. Vinod Singh 2025 INSC 366 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in absence of material indicating to the contrary, there is no inhibition to accept the age of deceased as per post mortem report. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:3 B!!
7 (2!5" 7
. - F
$ 7 !++++" 7
$
7 (!#4" 7
.
;
$
7 %(++"
7
. $
7 4'#4" 7
0 0 $ 7 4+++"
7
0 $
&(
C 3
7
! #+
!(
%(#+
!54+ Moreover, in the absence of material indicating to the contrary, there is no inhibition to accept the age of the deceased as per the Post6Mortem Report
!&
&(
)
C 0
$ 7 &++++" 7
. $
!+,
3 G
*
HF 7 %+!2$ !2 0 !#+
I7 &2+++" (J
7 %&++++" 7
H
. $
A 11.
In view of the above, referred to judgment, the age of deceased Aabid is ascertained as years at the time of accident. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in applying multiplier of 17 instead of 18 as per settled law. 12.
A perusal of the impugned Award reveals that the deceased was self3 employed, running a furniture shop and was a skilled carpenter with an asserted monthly income of Rs. 35,000/3. In absence of any documentary evidence to substantiate the said earnings, the learned Tribunal resorted to minimum wage notification as applicable to unskilled labourer in the State of Haryana. The learned tribunal completely overlooked the statement of PW 1 (wife of the deceased) and the fact that he was a skilled carpenter. Therefore, income of skilled person is to be taken into consideration. As per the notified minimum wages applicable to skilled workers during the relevant period, the correct monthly income ought to have been assessed at Rs. 10,969/3. Therefore, the monthly income of the claimant may be reasonably rounded off and reassessed at $(
>
?.
13.
A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd as expenses for personal expenditure. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal has granted meagre amount under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.
23 14.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed. The award dated 06.02.2023 is modified accordingly. The appellants3claimants are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation as per the calculations made here3under:3 Sr.
No.
Heads Compensation Awarded Monthly Income Rs.11000/3 Future prospects @ 40% Rs.4400/3 (40% of 11000) Deduction towards personal expenditure 1/3rd Rs.5133/3 (15400X 1/3rd) 4.
Total Income Rs.10267/3(1540035133) Multiplier Annual Dependency Rs.22,17,672/3 (10267X12X18) Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/3 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/3 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,45,200/3 Spousal : Rs. 48,400/3x1 Filial : Rs. 48,400/3x1 Parental : Rs. 48,400/3x1 " /",.!)$ ;") $( >--> 8 ? !0*+ ;") Amount Awarded by the Tribunal $( >>
? )= )+!0 ,"*) $(>>8 ? -- 8
15.
So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma
- 8 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation
3*.%!,!"*% $!$
8> the appellants3claimants are granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization.
16.
Respondent No. 33Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the accounts of the claimants/appellants, as per award dated 06.02.2023. The claimants/appellants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.
17.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 3 3
-(
( Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/non3speaking :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes