9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are as follows: 3.1 One Sandeep Chauhan died in an accident on November 26, 2010 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of a truck bearing registration No.HR-56-6047 between Ram Nagar and Dhandhera. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation against the respondents. 3.2 In the claim petition, the appellant/claimant asked for compensation of 20,20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respondents/opposite parties. The parties filed their pleadings before the Tribunal and the following issues were framed:- "1. Whether on dated 26.11.2010 the motor cycle of the deceased Sandeep Chauhan Chasis no. MD2DSPAZZTPE51258, Engine no. IBVBTF91396 Model Disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court, held that notional annual income of the deceased was 36,000/-. The Tribunal also followed the principle laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121, and held that one third share from the notional income of the deceased should be deducted as his personal expenses to calculate compensation on the basis of the notional annual income of the deceased. The Tribunal further held that the deceased's father, mother and wife were dependents on the deceased and they should be treated as dependents of the deceased. The multiplier of 17 was fixed by the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased who was 26 years of age at the time of the accident. After taking into account all these aspects, Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the said Tribunal which has been assessed by this Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54 and the compensation under the said head should have been awarded for a sum of 1,00,000/-. She further submitted that the compensation under the head 'funeral expenses' should have been granted as 25,000/- and in support of her such contention, she relied upon the aforementioned decisions. On the contrary, it has been stated on behalf of the respondents that in Sarla Verma (supra), the principles laid down by this Court have been followed by the Tribunal and therefore there is no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and the appeal dismissed by the High Court. 5. This Court in Santosh Devi (supra), held as follows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he / she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation." 6. After considering the decisions of this Court in Santosh Devi (supra) as well as Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra), we are of the opinion that it is the duty of the Court to fix a just compensation. At the time of fixing such compensation, the court should not succumb to the niceties or technicalities to grant just compensation in favour of the claimant. It is the duty of the court to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , there should have been an endeavour on the part of the Tribunal as well as the High Court to consider the inflation factor and further they should have considered the amounts fixed by the court several decades ago on such heads. Accordingly, as has been pointed out by this Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra), we hold that the compensation under the head 'loss of consortium' to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses amounts should have been awarded under such heads, that is, for 1,00,000/- and 25,000/- respectively and we award such compensation under the said heads. So far as the head of 'salary' is concerned, we do not express any opinion since we have found that the appellant could not prove the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sufficiently as per the order of the Tribunal) 3,000/- per month Future prospects (at the rate of 30% as prayed for) (as per para 8) [30% of 3,000 = 900/-]Salary is (3,000+ 900) =3,900/- Deduction towards personal expenses (as per Schedule II) 1/3rd of 3,900 = 1,300/- Total salary after adding future prospects and deductingpersonal expenses 3,900 - 1,300 = 2,600/- Multiplier i.e. 17 (as per ScheduleII and Section166 2,600 x 17 x 12 =5,30,400/- Total amount of compensation (as per para 8) 5,30,400/- Compensation under the head of "loss of consortium" (as per para7) 1,00,000/- Compensation under the head of 'funeral expense' (as per para 7) 25,000/- Grand Total 6,55,400/- 10. The order of the High Court and T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
