Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5513 OF 2012
(arising out of SLP(C)No.6367 of 2012)
VIMAL KANWAR & ORS. …. APPELLANT
VERSUS
KISHORE DAN & ORS. ….RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
The present appeal is filed against the judgment of
the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench in S.B. Civil
Misc. Appeal No. 1831 and 2071 of 2003. By the
impugned judgment dated 29th July, 2011, the Rajasthan
High Court upheld the compensation awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘Tribunal’) and observed as follows:
“13. In the situation, in the light of the
above detail and analysis it appears that the
learned tribunal’s basis of calculating amount of
compensation might be erroneous but in totality
determined, assessed and awarded total amount of
compensation Rs.14,93,700/ is proper and
justified, and there is no adequate basis for
increasing or reducing it. Therefore, judgment
dated 21.06.2003 by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Jaipur is affirmed and appeals by the
appellants and Insurance Company are dismissed.”
1Page 2
2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 14th
September, 1996 one Mr. Sajjan Singh Shekhawat was
sitting on his scooter which was parked on the side of
the road and was waiting for one Junior Engineer, N.
Hari Babu and another whom he had called for discussion.
At that time, the nonapplicant No.1, driver of the Jeep
No.RJ10C0833 came driving from the Railway Station
side with high speed, recklessly and negligently and hit
the scooter. Sajjan Singh along with his scooter came
under the Jeep and was dragged with the vehicle. Due to
this accident fatal injuries was caused to him and on
reaching the Hospital he expired. The scooter was also
damaged completely.
3. Appellant no. 1, the wife of the deceased was aged
about 24 years; appellant no. 2, the daughter was aged
about 2 years and appellant no. 3, the mother was
aged about 55 years at the time of death of the
deceased. They jointly filed an application to the Tribunal alleging that
negligent and rash driving by non-applicant no. 1 caused the death of Sajjan Singh and
claimed compensation of Rs.80,40,160/. It was brought
to the notice of the Tribunal that nonapplicant no. 1,
the jeep driver was in the employment of the non
2Page 3
applicant no. 2 and the nonapplicant no. 3, the United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. was the insurer of the vehicle.
4. The nonapplicant No.3, Insurance Company on
appearance filed written statement and alleged that the
vehicle owner has violated the conditions of the
Insurance Policy by not informing them about the
accident. Further, according to the Insurance Company
the vehicle owner should prove the fact that at the time
of accident, the Jeep driver, nonapplicant No.1 was
holding a valid and effective driving licence.
5. Altogether five issues were framed by the Tribunal:
“1. Whether due to the vehicle in question Jeep
No. RJ 10C 0833 being driven by driver, non
applicant No.1 on 14.09.1996, in front of
Assistant Engineer Office, PWD, within the
jurisdiction of Police Station Churu,
negligently and recklessness and caused
accident and injuries due to which Sajjan
Singh Shekhawat S/o Bhanwar Singh expired.
2. Whether above said vehicle driver at the time
accident was in employment of nonapplicant
No.2 and was working for his benefit and
profit.
3. Whether the nonapplicant No.3, Insurance
Company in view of the preliminary objections
and preliminary statement in their reply, are
relieved of their liability and if not what
is the effect thereon.
4 Whether the applicant are entitled to get the
claim amount or any other justified amount,
and if yes which applicant is entitled to how
much compensation and from which non
applicant.
5. Relief.”.
3Page 4
6. The first issue was answered by the Tribunal in an
affirmative manner. It was held that the reckless and
negligent driving of the driver of Jeep No.RJ 10C 0833
caused the accident which resulted in the death of
Sajjan Singh Shekhawat. Issue Nos. 2 and 3 were also
decided in favour of the applicants.
7. Issue Nos. 4 and 5 were related to the entitlement
of appellants towards the claims and the relief to be
granted. The Tribunal determined the compensation to
be granted in favour of the appellants at Rs.14,93,700/
jointly.
8. The actual salary of the deceased was reduced by
the Tribunal by deducting certain amounts towards
Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance. Without any
reason, the Tribunal also reduced the salary at Rs.
8,000/ per month though actual salary of the deceased
as per Last Pay Certificate (for short ‘LPC’) was Rs.
8,920/. Out of such reduced salary of Rs. 8,000/, the
Tribunal further deducted a sum of Rs.1,000/ per month
towards Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance and
thereby considered the actual salary of deceased to
be Rs.7,000/ per month. An amount of Rs. 4500/ was
added to it towards future income and, thereby the net
4Page 5
income of deceased was assessed at 11,500/ per month
(Rs.7,000/ + Rs.4,500/).
9. Admittedly, Sajjan Singh died at the age of 28
years and 7 ½ months . He was in the services of the
State Government posted as an Assistant Engineer. In
the normal course, he would have continued in the
services of the State Government upto February, 2026,
until attaining 58 years or upto February, 2028,
until attaining 60 years. As per the decision of this
Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, Sajjan
Singh having died at the age of 28 years 7 ½ months,
the multiplier of 17 is applicable in calculating the
compensation. But the Tribunal applied the lower
multiplier of 15 on the ground that the wife would be
getting family pension and would get job on the
compassionate ground and the daughter, aged about 2
years would get married in future.
10. Though the High Court noticed the aforesaid mistake
it upheld the compensation. A notional deduction of
income tax was made by the High Court from the salary of
the deceased apart from the deduction of annual pension
and came to the conclusion that the award passed by the
5Page 6
Tribunal was just and proper as apparent from paragraph
11 of the judgment which reads as under:
“11. If calculate according to the rate of
tax in the year 1996, we find that in the
assessment year 199697 on Rs.40,000/ no tax was
payable. On further income of Rs.20,000/, 20%
was payable, on further income of Rs.60,000/,
30% of income was taxed. 1/3rd of the salary or
Rs.15,000/ which ever was less was standard
deduction. Accordingly deducting Rs.15,000/ as
standard deduction taking into account the
savings and on applying rebate of Rs.12,000/
under Section 80C of the Income Tax Act, the
amount which remains, on that Rs.5812/ is
payable as tax. Thus, deducting taxable amount
out of income is Rs.1,01,228/. The appellant
Vimal Kanwar has herself stated that after death
of her husband she receives Rs.1460/ per month
as pension. The pension received on death of
husband should also be deducted. Thus, on
deducting annual pension of Rs.17,520/ the
income is Rs.1,83,708/ per annum. According to
Sarla Verma judgment increasing 50% for future
prospects the amount becomes Rs.1,25,562/ per
annum, out of this deducting 1/3rd for personal
expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier
of 17 according to age of the deceased this
amount is Rs.14,23,036/. The tribunal on account
of being deprived of income the deceased has
granted Rs.14,78,700/ to the deceased.”
11. The High Court noticed that the Tribunal wrongly
applied the multiplier of 15 but refused to interfere
with the award on the following grounds:
“12. IT is correct, that despite the revise
LPC being on record and showing salary to be
Rs.8920/ the tribunal has accepted salary to
be Rs.8000/ only out of this on account of
GPF and State Insurance Rs.1000/ has been
deducted and monthly income is assessed as
Rs.7,000/. Thereafter, taking into account
increasing income in future etc. Rs.4500/
has been added and monthly income is assessed
6Page 7
to be Rs.11500/ this assessment according to
evidence on record and established law, does
not appear to be proper. It is also worth
mentioning that the tribunal for granting
compensation to the appellants has taken unit
method has basis but while doing so the
amount that the deceased would have spent on
his personal expenses which is deductable as
per judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the Sarla Verma case and other cases has not
been deducted, because of which the
dependency is not properly assessed.
Thereafter, the multiplier of 15 applied by
the tribunal also does not seen to be in
accordance to law. It is also worth
mentioning that assessing amount in the said
manner the tribunal had not deducted the
payable income tax and the amount of pension
received by Smt. Vimal Kanwar due to death of
deceased. Similarly, while assessing
dependency deduction for GPF and State
Insurance, addition of Rs.4,500/ in monthly
income and multiplier of 15 etc. is not in
accordance with law. But it is worth
mentioning that taking income of the deceased
at the time of the accident is Rs.8,920/,
deducting payable income tax and amount of
pension received by the wife of the deceased,
the amount on account of loss of income to be
given to the appellant comes to
Rs.14,23,036/. It appears that the tribunal
on account of loss of income has granted
Rs.14,78,700/ and for all the remaining
heads a total of Rs.15,000/ only, which is
definitely too less. All the three appellants
should be granted proper compensation under
heads of cooperation from the deceased, loss
of love and affection and service,
protection, last rites, lost of estate and on
doing this the situation that emerges is
that, the total amount of Rs.14,93,700/
awarded by tribunal as compensation is
justified and therefore, any interference in
the amount of awarded compensation is not
proper desirable or necessary.”
7Page 8
12. Two appeals, one preferred by the appellants
claimants and another by the Insurance Company, were
dismissed by the High Court by common impugned judgment
dated 29th July, 2011.
13. From the facts and circumstances of the case, the
grievance of the appellants can be summarized as
follows:
(i) No amount can be deducted towards Provident
Fund, Pension and Insurance amount from the actual
salary of the victim for calculating compensation.
(ii) In the absence of any evidence, the Court
suo motu cannot deduct any amount towards income tax
from the actual salary of the victim.
(iii) On the facts of the present case, the
Tribunal and the High Court should have doubled the
salary by allowing 100% increase towards the future
prospects and
(iv) The Tribunal and the High Court failed to
ensure payment of just and fair compensation.
Reliance was also placed on decisions of this Court
which will be discussed later in this judgment.
14. The respondents have appeared but no counter
affidavit has been filed by them. Learned counsel for
8Page 9
the respondents merely justified the award passed by the
Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court.
15. The issues involved in this case are:
(i) Whether Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance
receivable by the claimants come within the periphery of
the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “Pecuniary
Advantage” liable for deduction.
(ii) Whether the salary receivable by claimant on
compassionate appointment comes within the periphery of
the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “Pecuniary
Advantage” liable for deduction.
(iii) Whether the income tax is liable to be
deducted for determination of compensation under the
Motor Vehicles Act and
(iv) Whether the compensation awarded to the
appellants is just and proper.
16. For determination of the aforesaid issues, it is
necessary to notice the relevant facts as mentioned
hereunder.
17. Smt. Vimal Kanwar, PW3 (appellant no.1 herein),
who is the wife of the deceased has stated in her
examination in chief that her husband obtained BE Degree
from Jodhpur University in First Class and he was
directly appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer in
9Page 10
the year 1994. At the time of accident he was 28 years
old and was getting salary of Rs.9,000/ per month. If
he had been alive he would have got promoted upto the
rank of Chief Engineer.
18. Ram Avtar Parikh, PW2 is an employee of Public
Works Department, where the deceased was working. He
stated that Sajjan Singh was working on the post of
Assistant Engineer and at that time his monthly salary
was Rs.8,920/. In support of his statement he
produced the Last Pay Certificate and the Service Book
(Exh. 1.) of the deceased.
19. The first issue is “whether Provident Fund, Pension
and Insurance receivable by claimants come within the
periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as
“Pecuniary Advantage” liable for deduction.”
The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before
this Court in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) and others vs.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.
reported in (1999) 1 SCC 90. In the said case, this
Court held that Provident Fund, Pension, Insurance
and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed
deposits, etc. are all a “pecuniary advantage”
receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death but
all these have no correlation with the amount receivable
1Page 11
under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental
death. Such an amount will not come within the
periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as
“pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction. The
following was the observation and finding of this Court:
“35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the
provident fund which is a deferred payment out of
the contribution made by an employee during the
tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs
are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of
the accidental death. This amount is secured, is
certain to be received, while the amount under the
Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable
only on the happening of the event, viz., accident,
which may not take place at all. Similarly, family
pension is also earned by an employee for the
benefit of his family in the form of his
contribution in the service in terms of the service
conditions receivable by the heirs after his death.
The heirs receive family pension even otherwise
than the accidental death. No correlation between
the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is
received either by the insured or the heirs of the
insured on account of the contract with the
insurer, for which the insured contributes in the
form of premium. It is receivable even by the
insured if he lives till maturity after paying all
the premiums. In the case of death, the insurer
indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in
terms of the contract for the premium paid. Again,
this amount is receivable by the claimant not on
account of any accidental death but otherwise on
the insured's death. Death is only a step or
contingency in terms of the contract, to receive
the amount. Similarly any cash, bank balance,
shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a
pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on
account of one's death but all these have no
correlation with the amount receivable under a
statute occasioned only on account of accidental
death. How could such an amount come within the
periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as
“pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction. When we
seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be
on a similar and same plane having nexus, inter se,
1Page 12
between them and not to which there is no semblance
of any correlation. The insured (deceased)
contributes his own money for which he receives the
amount which has no correlation to the compensation
computed as against the tortfeasor for his
negligence on account of the accident. As
aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation
under the Act is on account of the injury or death
without making any contribution towards it, then
how can the fruits of an amount received through
contributions of the insured be deducted out of the
amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The
amount under this Act he receives without any
contribution. As we have said, the compensation
payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory
while the amount receivable under the life
insurance policy is contractual.”
20. The second issue is
“whether the salary receivable
by the claimant on compassionate appointment comes
within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be
termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” liable for deduction.”
“Compassionate appointment” can be one of the
conditions of service of an employee, if a scheme to
that effect is framed by the employer. In case, the
employee dies in harness i.e. while in service leaving
behind the dependents, one of the dependents may request
for compassionate appointment to maintain the family of
the deceased employee dies in harness. This cannot be
stated to be an advantage receivable by the heirs on
account of one’s death and have no correlation with the
amount receivable under a statute occasioned on account
of accidental death. Compassionate appointment may have
1Page 13
nexus with the death of an employee while in service but
it is not necessary that it should have a correlation
with the accidental death. An employee dies in harness
even in normal course, due to illness and to maintain
the family of the deceased one of the dependents may be
entitled for compassionate appointment but that cannot
be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” that comes under the
periphery of Motor Vehicles Act and any amount received
on such appointment is not liable for deduction for
determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles
Act.
21. The third issue is
“whether the income tax is
liable to be deducted for determination of compensation
under the Motor Vehicles Act”
In the case of Sarla Verma & Anr.(Supra), this
Court held “generally the actual income of the deceased
less income tax should be the starting point for
calculating the compensation.”
This Court further observed that “where the annual
income is in taxable range, the word “actual salary”
should be read as “actual salary less tax”. Therefore,
it is clear that if the annual income comes within the
taxable range income tax is required to be deducted for
determination of the actual salary. But while deducting
1Page 14
incometax from salary, it is necessary to notice the
nature of the income of the victim. If the victim is
receiving income chargeable under the head “salaries”
one should keep in mind that under Section 192 (1) of
the Incometax Act, 1961 any person responsible for
paying any income chargeable under the head “salaries”
shall at the time of payment, deduct incometax on
estimated income of the employee from “salaries” for
that financial year. Such deduction is commonly known
as tax deducted at source (‘TDS’ for short). When the
employer fails in default to deduct the TDS from
employee salary, as it is his duty to deduct the TDS,
then the penalty for nondeduction of TDS is prescribed
under Section 201(1A) of the Incometax Act, 1961.
Therefore, in case the income of the victim is only
from “salary”, the presumption would be that the
employer under Section 192 (1) of the Incometax Act,
1961 has deducted the tax at source from the employee’s
salary. In case if an objection is raised by any party,
the objector is required to prove by producing evidence
such as LPC to suggest that the employer failed to
deduct the TDS from the salary of the employee.
1Page 15
However, there can be cases where the victim is not a salaried person
i.e. his income is from sources other than salary, and the annual income falls
within taxable range, in such cases, if any objection as to deduction of tax is
made by a party then the claimant is required to prove that the victim has
already paid income tax and no further tax has to be deducted from the
income.
22. In the present case, none of the respondents
brought to the notice of the Court that the incometax
payable by the deceased Sajjan Singh was not deducted at
source by the employer State Government. No such
statement was made by Ram Avtar Parikh, PW2 an employee
of Public Works Department of the State Government who
placed on record the Last Pay Certificate and the
Service Book of the deceased. The Tribunal or the High
Court on perusal of the Last Pay Certificate, have not
noticed that the incometax on the estimated income of
the employee was not deducted from the salary of the
employee during the said month or Financial Year. In
absence of such evidence, it is presumed that the salary
paid to the deceased Sajjan Singh as per Last Pay
Certificate was paid in accordance with law i.e. by
deducting the incometax on the estimated income of the
deceased Sajjan Singh for that month or the Financial
1Page 16
Year. The appellants have specifically stated that
Assessment Year applicable in the instant case is 1997
98 and not 199697 as held by the High Court. They
have also taken specific plea that for the Assessment
Year 199798 the rate of tax on income more than
40,000/ and upto Rs.60,000/ was 15% and not 20% as
held by the High Court. The aforesaid fact has not been
disputed by the respondents.
23. In view of the finding as recorded above and the
provisions of the Incometax Act, 1961, as discussed, we
hold that the High Court was wrong in deducting 20% from
the salary of the deceased towards incometax, for
calculating the compensation. As per law, the
presumption will be that employerState Government at
the time of payment of salary deducted incometax on the
estimated income of the deceased employee from the
salary and in absence of any evidence, we hold that the
salary as shown in the Last Pay Certificate at
Rs.8,920/ should be accepted which if rounded off comes
to Rs.9,000/ for calculating the compensation payable
to the dependent(s).
24. The fourth issue is “whether the compensation
awarded to the appellants is just and proper.”
1Page 17
For determination of this issue, it is required to
determine the percentage of increase in income to be
made towards prospects of advancement in future career
and revision of pay. In General Manager, Kerala State
Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas
(1994) 2 SCC 176 this Court noticed the age and income
of the deceased for determination of future prospects of
advancement in life and career. The Court held as
follows:
“19. In the present case the deceased was 39 years
of age. His income was Rs 1032 per month. Of course,
the future prospects of advancement in life and
career should also be sounded in terms of money to
augment the multiplicand. While the chance of the
multiplier is determined by two factors, namely, the
rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy and
the age of the deceased or of the claimant whichever
is higher, the ascertainment of the multiplicand is
a more difficult exercise. Indeed, many factors have
to be put into the scales to evaluate the
contingencies of the future. All contingencies of
the future need not necessarily be baneful. The
deceased person in this case had a more or less
stable job. It will not be inappropriate to take a
reasonably liberal view of the prospects of the
future and in estimating the gross income it will be
unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on
the present actual income of Rs 1032 per month. We
think, having regard to the prospects of advancement
in the future career, respecting which there is
evidence on record, we will not be in error in
making a higher estimate of monthly income at Rs
2000 as the gross income.”
25. In New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Gopali & ors.
reported in AIR 2012 SC 3381 this Court noticed that the
1Page 18
High Court determined the compensation by granting 100%
increase in the income of the deceased. Taking into
consideration the fact that in the normal course, the
deceased would have served for 22 years and during that
period his salary would have certainly doubled, this
Court, upheld the judgment of the High Court.
26. In K.R. Madhusudhan v. Administrative Officer
(2011) 4 SCC this Court observed that there can be
departure from the rule of thumb and held as under:
“10. The present case stands on different factual
basis where there is clear and incontrovertible
evidence on record that the deceased was entitled
and in fact bound to get a raise in income in the
future, a fact which was corroborated by evidence on
record. Thus, we are of the view that the present
case comes within the “exceptional circumstances”
and not within the purview of the rule of thumb laid
down by Sarla Verma1 judgment. Hence, even though
the deceased was above 50 years of age, he shall be
entitled to increase in income due to future
prospects.”
27. Recently in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance
Company Ltd. reported in (2012) 6 SCC 421 this Court
found it difficult to find any rationale for the
observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in
Sarla Verma’s case and observed as follows:
“14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any
rationale for the observation made in para 24 of the
judgment in Sarla Verma case2 that where the
deceased was selfemployed or was on a fixed salary
without provision for annual increment, etc., the
1Page 19
courts will usually take only the actual income at
the time of death and a departure from this rule
should be made only in rare and exceptional cases
involving special circumstances. In our view, it
will be naïve to say that the wages or total
emoluments/income of a person who is selfemployed
or who is employed on a fixed salary without
provision for annual increment, etc., would remain
the same throughout his life.
15. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone
across the board. It does not make any distinction
between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the
effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the
cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on
those who are selfemployed or who get fixed
income/emoluments. They are the worst affected
people. Therefore, they put in extra efforts to
generate additional income necessary for sustaining
their families.
18. Therefore, we do not think that while making the
observations in the last three lines of para 24 of
Sarla Verma’s judgment, the Court had intended to
lay down an absolute rule that there will be no
addition in the income of a person who is self
employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it
would be reasonable to say that a person who is
selfemployed or is engaged on fixed wages will also
get 30% increase in his total income over a period
of time and if he/she becomes the victim of an
accident then the same formula deserves to be
applied for calculating the amount of compensation.”
28. In the case of New India Assurance Co.Ltd.(Supra),
this Court noticed that the High Court determined the
compensation by granting 100% increase in the income of
the deceased. Taking into consideration the fact that
in the normal course, the deceased would have served for
22 years and during that period his salary would have
1Page 20
certainly doubled, upheld the judgment of the High Court
with following observation:
“20.We are also of the view that the High Court
was justified in determining the amount
of compensation by granting 100% increase
in the income of the deceased. In the
normal course, the deceased would have
served for 22 years and during that period his
salary would have certainly doubled because
the employer was paying 20% of his salary as
bonus per year.”
29. Admittedly, the date of birth of deceased Sajjan
Singh being 1st February, 1968; the submission that he
would have continued in service upto 1st February, 2026,
if 58 years is the age of retirement or 1st February,
2028, if 60 years is the age of retirement is accepted.
He was only 28 years 7 ½ month old at the time of death.
In normal course, he would have served the State
Government minimum for about 30 years. Even if we do
not take into consideration the future prospect of
promotion which the deceased was otherwise entitled and
the actual pay revisions taken effect from 1st January,
1996 and 1st January, 2006, it cannot be denied that the
pay of the deceased would have doubled if he would
continued in services of the State till the date of
retirement. Hence, this was a fit case in which 100%
increase in the future income of the deceased should
2Page 21
have been allowed by the Tribunal and the High Court,
which they failed to do.
30. 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/.
31. Thus, according to us, in all a sum of
Rs.29,73,000/ would be a fair, just and reasonable
award in the circumstances of this case.
2Page 22
32. The rate of interest of 12% is allowed from the
date of the petition filed before the Tribunal till
payment is made.
33. Respondent No.3 is directed to pay the total award
with interest minus the amount (if already paid) within
three months.
The appellant No.2daughter who was aged
about 2 years at the time of accident of the deceased
has already attained majority; money may be required for
her education and marriage.
In the circumstances, we
direct respondent No.3 to deposit 25% of the due amount
in the account of appellant no.1the wife. Out of the
rest 75% of the due amount, 35% of the amount be
invested in a Nationalized Bank by fixed deposit for a
period of one year in the name of the daughterappellant
No.2.
Out of the rest 40% of the due amount, 20% each
be invested in a Nationalized Bank by fixed deposit for
a period of one year in the name of the appellant Nos. 1
and 3, the wife and the mother respectively.
34. The award passed by the Tribunal dated 21st June,
2003 and the judgment dated 29th July, 2011 of the
Rajasthan High Court stand modified to the extent above.
The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observation and
direction. No separate order as to costs.
2Page 23
………..………………………………………..J.
(G.S. SINGHVI)
………………………………………………….J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
NEW DELHI,
MAY 03, 2013.
2
