Kanumuri Suryakanthamma and Others. Vs. M. Narasimha Rao and Others. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....proceedings the adjudicating officer on taking notice of the alleged contravention of fera initiates adjudication proceedings through the process of issuing show-cause notice under rule 3(1) of the appellate rules. the adjudication proceedings under section 51 of fera read with rule 3 of the appeal rules provide that the adjudicating officer must on taking notice of the alleged contravention of fera issue first notice under rule 3(1) and if not satisfied with the cause shown, then issue second notice under rule 3(3) fixing a date of hearing of the show cause notice issued under rule 3(1). in the present case, the adjudicating officer on taking notice of the alleged contravention of fera has signed signing the show cause notice on 31/05/2002. since the adjudicating officer has taken notice of the alleged offence on 31/05/2002 which is within a period of two years from the commencement of fema as contemplated under section 49(3) of fema, the adjudicating officer would have jurisdiction to adjudicate the notice dated 31/05/2002. .....was increased by a mere 7%. in view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words 'actual salary' should be read as 'actual salary less tax']. the addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. there should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. a departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances." in the instant case, it is not in dispute that the deceased was below 40 years of age and holding a permanent job. therefore,.....

Judgment:

:

The claimants in O.P.No.82 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Eluru (for short, "the Tribunal") filed this civil miscellaneous appeal feeling dissatisfied with award dated 04.03.2003, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,18,950/- under various heads towards compensation for the death of one Kanumuri China Krishnamraju (for short, "the deceased"), the son of appellant No.1, husband of appellant No.2 and father of appellant Nos.3 and 4 respectively.

Though notices have been served, no one appeared for the respondents.

The Tribunal found that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, the driver of the Tractor owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. The deceased was working as a Gas man, which is an aided post, in an aided college by name Dr.K.S. Raju Arts and Science College, Penugonda. An employee of the college was examined as PW.1 on behalf of the claimants. He has produced Exs.X1 to X4. Ex.X1 is the authorization letter given by the college in favour of PW.3 for deposing on its behalf, Ex.X2 is the notarized photostat copy of service register of the deceased, Ex.X3 is the attested copy of pension papers and Ex.X4 is the pay certificate issued by the college authorities. On the basis of the above evidence, the Tribunal has arrived at Rs.4,06,950/- as loss of dependency by taking the last pay drawn and adopting the multiplier of 12.50.

At the hearing, Sri A. Veeraswamy, learned counsel for the appellants, made the following submissions:

(i) Ex.X4, salary certificate, shows that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.4,981/- and that as held in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation1, the deceased being a permanent employee aged 39 years, 50% of the last pay drawn shall be added towards future prospects. The learned counsel further submitted that following the same judgment, the multiplier of 15 requires to be adopted as against the multiplier of 12.50 applied by the Tribunal.

(ii) That as held in Sarla Verma (supra), 1/4th of the income needs to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd, as was done by the Tribunal, as the deceased left behind four dependants.

I find force in the above submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. In Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court held that while assessing the loss of dependency, the future prospects of the deceased shall be taken into consideration. The Supreme Court inter alia held as under:

"In Susamma Thomas, this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words 'actual salary' should be read as 'actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances."

In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the deceased was below 40 years of age and holding a permanent job. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have added 50% to the last pay drawn of Rs.4,070/- + "FP Rs.5/-" as taken by the Tribunal. In Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court held that if the deceased was aged between 36 and 40, the relevant multiplier is 15. As noted above, the Tribunal has adopted 12.50 as the multiplier. The award of the Tribunal needs to be modified on this count by substituting 15 for 12.50.

Coming to the aspect of deduction to the personal expenses, in Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court held that where the number of dependant family members left behind by the deceased is 4 to 6, 1/4th of the income shall be deducted towards the personal expenditure of the deceased. As the deceased has left behind four dependants, the personal expenditure could be deducted at 1/4th of the total salary including the 50% towards future prospects. The learned counsel for the appellants fairly conceded that the Tribunal has awarded in all Rs.32,000/- towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, whereas in Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court has fixed the maximum ceiling of Rs.20,000/- under these heads. Therefore, Rs.12,000/- is required to be deducted from the total compensation payable. The learned counsel on the basis of this order submitted that the revised compensation will exceed the claim made by the appellants and that the compensation may be restricted to the claim amount of Rs.6,23,144/-. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is modified. If the revised compensation exceeds the claim of Rs.6,23,144/-, the award shall be restricted to the said sum. The appellants are entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of payment.

The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed.