By the Court:
1. The two appeals above noted are directed against the same award and judgment dated 30th January, 2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Essential Commodity Act), Jaipur, in claim case No.202/2004, (Manna Ram Kumawat Vs. RSRTC and ors.), and therefore, have been taken up for adjudication by this common judgment and order.
2. Briefly, the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy needs to be first noticed. On 24th December, 2001 at about 4.00 PM, while the deceased Lal Chand Kumawat, was traveling in Jeep No. RJ-14-1C-0347, died of an accident, as the Jeep was hit by Bus No. RJ-09-P-1678 of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation', for short). The claimants lodged a claim petition for loss of bread winner of the family. The Corporation filed his counter to the claim petition denying the contents of the claim petition and the claim as well. On the basis of pleaded facts of the claim petition, response of the Corporation, evidence adduced by the parties and materials available on record; the Tribunal allowed the claim petition of the claimants to the extent of Rs.6,10,000/- (Rs. Six lacs and ten thousand only).
3. The Corporation as well as the claimants have instituted the appeals above noted for the Corporation, the amount of claim awarded is in excess and according to the claimants, the amount of compensation allowed his less, and therefore, have prayed for enhancement of compensation.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the memo of appeal, asserted that the claimants failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence as to the monthly income of the deceased, and therefore, the income of Rs.4,500/- arrived at, by the Tribunal is not supported by any legally sustainable evidence.
5. According to the learned counsel since the age of the deceased was 40 years, therefore, multiplier of 14 ought to have been applied whereas the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 to the multiplicand. Since there was no cogent and convincing evidence of income produced and the claimants failed to prove the income to the extent of Rs.4,500/-; hence criteria of notional income ought to have been applied and in the instant case at hand. Thus, the Tribunal was not justified in arriving at the finding of monthly income of Rs.4,500/- of the deceased. Therefore, the amount of compensation arrived at on that count is bad in the eye of law. In support of his submissions, reliance is placed on the opinion of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sedu Ram and Ors. Vs. Mali Ram and Ors; 2011 R.A.R. 209 (Raj.). He has further relied upon the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and others Vs. Madan Mohan and another; 2013(9) SCC 65; repelling the claim for enhancement by addition to income for further prospects.
6. Per contra, Mr. B.C. Rawat, appearing on behalf of the claimants emphasized that the amount of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal is not a Just compensation for the reason that no amount of compensation has been awarded on account of loss of future prospects for increments, which according to the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land, ought to have been 30%. Further, the deduction of 1/3rd expenses made towards personal and living expenses is excess. Referring to the opinion of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another; 2009 (6) SCC 121. The learned counsel vehemently argued that having regard to the number of dependent family members, which is five in the instant case at hand, deduction to the extent of 1/4th of the total income ought to have been deducted for personal and living expenses of the deceased.
7. Though, the deceased was a Contractor and was making an earning of Rs.9,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month; the Tribunal did not award any amount of compensation, keeping in view the future prospect of increments in income. In the back drop of the opinion of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors; 2012 (6) SCC 421, the learned counsel argued that the cost of living, which is ever increasing, is an important aspect and cannot be lost sight of. Increase in the price index directly impacts the cost of living and makes no distinction between rich and poor, and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have added 30% of annual income while computing the amount of compensation.
8. The learned counsel would further submit that the amount of compensation awarded for loss of consortium is Rs.10,000/- whereas it ought to have been Rs. one lac as has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others; 2013 (9) SCC 54. For the purpose of uniformity and consistency on a socio-economic issue, as contrasted from a legal principle, the award of compensation under the conventional heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses, needs to be increased.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record.
10. Indisputably, the age of the deceased at the time of his death in the accident was 40 years. The controversy as regards the application of multiplier with reference to the age, has been set at rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Sarla Verma(supra), as would be evident from para 42, which reads thus:
42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.
11. A glance of paragraph 42 aforesaid, would reveal that in the instant case at hand, multiplier of 15 ought to have been adopted.
12. The issue of deductions required to be made towards personal and living expenses, has also been considered and adjudicated upon by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Sarla Verma(supra), observing thus:
30.Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view 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) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.
13. From the undisputed facts, it is evident that there were five dependent members while the unfortunate accident occurred causing death of Lal Chand Kumawat (deceased). Accordingly, deduction of th of the total income ought to have been made towards personal and living expenses whereas 1/3rd deductions have been made in the instant case.
14. In the case of the Rajesh and others (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land allowed an amount of Rs. one lac for loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000/- as against funeral expenses, having regard to the increase in the price index and various other factors. Revisiting the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads, Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
17. The ratio of a decision of this Court, on a legal issue is a precedent. But an observation made by this Court, mainly to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio-economic issue, as contrasted from a legal principle, though a precedent, can be, and in fact ought to be periodically revisited, as observed in Santhosh Devi(supra). We may therefore, revisit the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses. It may be noted that the sum of Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 10,000/- in those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-, In legal parlance, 'consortium' is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our Courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English Courts have also recognized the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium.
15. It has been emphasized on behalf of the appellant-Corporation, while resisting the claim of addition of 30% of actual salary, relying upon the opinion of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Reshma Kumari (supra),that standardization of addition to income for future prospects though helps in achieving certainty in arriving at appropriate compensation and 50% actual salary towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years, and 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years but no addition, if the age of the deceased is more than 50 years, has been approved. But, the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land has further observed that in some cases where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects will be appropriate. However, a departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases.
16. In the instant case at hand, it is pleaded case of the claimants/appellants that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.9,000 to Rs.10,000/- per month as he was a Contractor and skilled labour himself. The evidence that has been brought on record remained unchallenged by the Corporation. It has been empathetically argued referring to the contents of reply to the claim petition that the statement made in the claim petition to the extent of Rs. 9,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- of income per month, was not even specifically denied. Be that as it may, having regard to the singular facts, evidence adduced and materials available on record, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal as to the monthly income of Rs.4,500/- appears to be legally valid and calls for no interference. In the case of Sedu Ram and Ors.(supra), there was no evidence adduced by the claimants to substantiate the fact of earning of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the business of selling milk whereas in the instant case at hand, the claimants specifically stated in the claim petition that the earning of the deceased being Rs. 9,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month and have also produced witnesses in support of the averments made. The Tribunal on a consideration of the pleaded facts, evidence adduced and materials available on record, however, determined the monthly income of deceased as Rs. 4,500/-.
17. Admittedly, no amount of compensation has been added to the actual salary keeping in view the future prospects of increments in income. There is evidence and material to draw an inference that there was no provisions for the deceased to future prospects of increments in income. In the totality facts and circumstances of the case at hand, having regard to the evidence adduced and materials available on record, 30% of addition of the annual income, on account of future prospects of increments in income would be a valid criteria to arrive at a just compensation in the facts of the instant case at hand. Accordingly, this Court allows 30% of addition to the actual salary. Having regard to the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied in the instant case. Therefore, the multiplier stands modified to that extent. An amount of Rs. one lac for loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses, deserves to be allowed.
18. In the result, the claimants/appellants shall be entitled to compensation under the following heads:
| Heads | Rs. | |
| 1. | Loss of dependents | 7,89,840/- |
| 2. | Funeral Expenses | 25,000/- |
| 3. | Loss of consortium | 1,00,000/-. |
| Total | Rs. 9,14,840/- |
20. In the result, Civil Misc. Appeal No.371/2005 (Manna Ram Kumawat and Ors. Vs. R.S.R.T.C and Anr.) is partly allowed with the enhancement, as indicated above. The Civil Misc. Appeal No.738/2004 (R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Shri Manna Ram Kumawat and Ors.) is hereby dismissed.
21. It is made clear that the claim for compensation admissible to Manna Ram, who died on 20th December, 2009, has been abandoned.
22. The Corporation shall either pay the amount of compensation by way of Demand Draft in favour of the claimants or deposit the same with interest as awarded, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, after deducting the amount already paid within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
23. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
24. A copy of this order be placed in each of the file.