Enhancement of Compensation on Account of Death MACT Case.
In this post we will discuss about an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on account of death of Sukhbir Singh in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 29.01.2010.
Enhancement of compensation under MACT Law
Today we will discuss about an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on account of death of Sukhbir Singh in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 29.01.2010.
Facts of the case
Appellant
Birmati Devi and another
Respondent
Vipin Kumar and others
Date of Decision: 29.11.2019
FAO 5498 of 2012 (O&M)
CM 25225 CII of 2012
CM 19020 CII of 2019
CM 19021 CII of 2019
Rules:
Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules 2006
Date of Accident: 29.01.2010
FAO No. 5498 of 2012, dismissed for non-prosecution: 24.10.2017
Issues and controversies involved
At the outset of this case the Appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay for filing an appeal after 166 days from the period of limitation after the incident takes place, the appellant prays in the application for condonation and for the appeal to be returned to its original number and stage which is allowed and restored.
In view of averments made in the application supported by affidavit of Smt. Birmati Devi, one of the applicants, the application is allowed and delay of 166 days in filing the appeal stands condoned, subject to condition that in case the appellants succeed in appeal, they will forego interest for the period of delay.
ALSO READ- WHERE TO FILE MACT CLAIM IN CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI? JURISDICTION.
The claimants ( widow and son ) via this appeal are seeking enhancement of compensation on account of death of Sukhbir Singh in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 29.01.2010.
Counsel for the appellants would argue that the deceased was regular employee of Haryana Government, drawing salary of Rs.24,330/- per month, evidenced by document Ex.P60. It is argued that adequate compensation may be allowed by calculating loss of dependency on the 2 of 4 basis of salary of deceased at the time of death, extending benefit of additional income for future prospects and applying appropriate multiplier.
Counsel representing the insurance company, on the contrary, would argue that since family of deceased is entitle to financial assistance under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules 2006 (in short, ‘Rules of 2006’), the said amount is amenable to deduction out of compensation assessed. In this context, reference has been made to judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs Shashi Sharma, 2016 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 569.
Judgements and settled laws
In the case of Samrat v. Manish,2018 MP 833, order dated 16-11-2018:
Madhya Pradesh High Court: This appeal was filed before a Single Judge Bench of Rohit Arya, J., under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned order passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Shajapur).
Facts of the case were that deceased met with an accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of respondent thereby causing their death. The respondent’s vehicle was insured with Insurance Company (Respondent 3). The claimant brought before Court the salary earned by deceased at the time of his death i.e. Rs 3,500. The claimant suffered not only the loss of love and affection of their family member but also financial constraints. The claimants were aggrieved by the meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal and prayed for its enhancement.
The issue before the court was whether the compensation awarded by Tribunal of Rs 2,41,000 was justified. Insurance company supported the award of compensation passed by Tribunal to be just, appropriate and proper with no requirement of enhancement. The High Court was of the view that impugned award was not assessed properly, being on the lower side it needed to be enhanced taking into consideration the age, dependency of the deceased and his future prospects. Court found it appropriate to deduct 1/3 instead of 1/2 towards personal expenses of the deceased. On viewing that Tribunal did not award compensation under the head ‘future prospects’, compensation was granted under the above head. Therefore, the appeal was allowed and award of compensation was enhanced to Rs 2,44,000.
In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017it was held that:
ALSO READ- ACQUITTAL IN ACCIDENT CASE MACT CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI
“While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.”
In the case of SebastianiLakra and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another, 2018 AIR (SC) 5034 it was held that:
“It is not disputed that the last drawn income of the deceased including DA was Rs.58,565/. On this amount, the deceased would definitely have been paying some income tax. Since exact calculations of the same has not been given, we deduct about Rs.2,565/ per month for this purpose and for purposes of calculation of loss of income, assess the income as Rs.56,000/ per month. Out of this amount 1/3 is deducted i.e. Rs.18,667/, for personal expenses leaving a balance of Rs. 37,333/ per month as loss of dependency to the family, which works out to Rs.4,47,996/ per annum. Applying a multiplier of 11, the compensation works out to Rs.49,27,956/. In addition thereto, according to the judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi case (supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/ for loss of estate, Rs.40,000/ loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/ for funeral expenses i.e. a total amount of Rs.49,97,956/ which is rounded off to Rs.50,00,000/. On this amount, the claimants shall be entitled to interest @ of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the payment of the amount. Obviously, the insurance company shall be entitled to deduct/adjust the amounts already paid by it.”
In the case of Vimal Kanwar &Ors vs Kishore Dan &Ors on 3 May, 2013 the following was held:
“Having regard to the facts and evidence on record, we estimate the monthly income of the deceased Sajjan Singh at Rs.9,000 x 2 = Rs.18,000/- per month. From this his personal living expenses, which should be 1/3rd, there being three dependents has to be deducted. Thereby, the ‘actual salary’ will come to Rs.18,000 – Rs.6,000/- = Rs.12,000/- per month or Rs.12,000 x 12 =1,44,000/- per annum. As the deceased was 28 ½ years old at the time of death the multiplier of 17 is applied, which is appropriate to the age of the deceased. The normal compensation would then work out to be Rs.1,44,000/- x 17 =Rs.24,48,000/- to which we add the usual award for loss of consortium and loss of the estate by providing a conventional sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-; loss of love and affection for the daughter Rs.2,00,000/- , loss of love and affection for the widow and the mother at Rs.1,00,000/- each i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- and funeral expenses of Rs.25,000/-.”
ALSO READ- MACT CLAIM CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI ZIRAKPUR KHARAR
Findings of court
The deceased was born on 06.07.1954 and between 55-56 years at the time of death. He was drawing salary of Rs.24,330/- per month. The Tribunal has wrongly assessed income of deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month. The entire salary of deceased shall be taken into account for computing loss of dependency. The annual income of deceased comes to Rs.2,91,960/- (24,330 x 12). After deducting income tax i.e. Rs.13,592/-, the net annual income is Rs.2,78,368/-. The appellants shall be entitle to addition in income for future prospects @ 15%. Admissible multiplier would be 11.
The claim has been filed by the widow and son of the deceased, thus, deduction for personal expenses would be 1/3rd. In this manner, loss of dependency is Rs.23,47,570/- (Rs.30,62,048/- i.e. 2,78,368 x 11 + Rs.4,59,307 (15% addition) – Rs.11,73,785/- (1/3rd deduction).
The deceased died on 29.01.2010. The widow of deceased shall be entitle to financial assistance under the Rules of 2006 till 31.07.2012. The amount comes to Rs.7,29,900/- (24,330 x 30). However, 3 of 4 only 50% thereof i.e. Rs.3,64,950/- is liable to be deducted from compensation calculated by this Court. Accordingly, the appellants are entitle to compensation to the tune of Rs.19,82,620/- (23,47,570 – 3,64,950).
Under conventional heads, compensation allowed by the Tribunal is modified to the effect that claimants shall be entitle to Rs.70,000.00 (Rs.40,000.00 for loss of consortium, Rs.15,000.00 each qua loss to estate and funeral expenses), in the light of judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 SCC 1270 and SebastianiLakra and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another, 2018 AIR (SC) 5034.
Conclusion
Total compensation is Rs.20,52,620/- (19,82,620 + 70,000) and additional amount is Rs.14,46,620/- (20,52,620 – 6,06,000) payable with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization except for the period of delay of 166 days in filing the appeal, to widow of the deceased, to be invested in fixed deposit for a period of one year.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
ALSO READ- MACT COMPENSATION FOR HOUSE WIFE CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI
This post was written by Adnan Motiwala.
For case specific advice, one may contact best/top/expert MACT ROAD RAGE RASH DRIVING Lawyer Advocate of Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Zirakpur
More on 99888-17966.
