1.These appeals have been filed by the appellant
against the impugned common Judgment and order
dated 18.6.2013 passed in First Appeal No. 1064 of
2005 with First Appeal No.1555 of 2005 by the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, wherein the High
Court dismissed First Appeal No.1064 of 2005 which
was filed by the claimant and allowed First Appeal
No.1555 of 2005 which was filed by the Insurance
Company. 2.The necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder
to appreciate the case with a view to determine
whether the appellant, Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi,
the father of Raj (deceased) is entitled for
relief as prayed in this appeal. 3.On 12.07.2002, Raj Ashvinbhai, the deceased was
heading to Istanpur from Uttamnagar on his two-
wheeler. While on his way, near Bhadvatnagar bus
stand, a truck bearing registration no. GQA 7215
belonging to the respondent, Ramkaran Ramchandra
Sharma crashed into the two-wheeler on which Raj was riding. Due to the force created by this
accident, Raj’s two-wheeler slid for about 25 feet
while Raj fell down and sustained grievous
injuries. Thereupon he was taken to L.G. Hospital
wherein he succumbed to his injuries. On the same
day, a panchnama was filed before the Vatva Police
Station, Ahmedabad. 4.The claimant-appellant filed a claim petition
before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (in
short ‘the Tribunal’) at Ahmedabad, claiming
Rs.28,73,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal
ascertained the future income of the deceased at
Rs.18,000/- per month. 1/3rd of the monthly income
was deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore,
Rs.12,000/- per month (Rs.1,44,000/- p.a.) was
calculated for the loss of dependency to the
parents of the deceased. Since the age of the
deceased at the time of his death was 19 years, on
applying the appropriate multiplier of 16, the
total compensation towards loss of dependency was JUDGMENT
arrived at Rs.23,04,000/-. A sum of Rs.15,000/-
was awarded towards love and affection and
Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and thus a
total compensation of Rs.23,24,000/- was arrived
at by the Tribunal. The Tribunal apportioned
contributory negligence at 20% on the part of the
deceased and 80% on the driver of the offending
truck and thus, after making 20% deduction
towards contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased the Tribunal awarded an amount of
Rs.18,59,200/- with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum to the appellant. 5.Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal, the appellant preferred First
Appeal No.1064 of 2005 before the High Court for
enhancement of compensation, whereas the 2nd
respondent-Insurance Company preferred First
Appeal No.1555 of 2005 for the reduction of the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. After hearing the parties, the High Court
affirmed the future income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- per month as determined by the
Tribunal and deducted 50% towards personal
expenses. It further held that the Tribunal had
erred in considering the age of the deceased at
the time of his death rather than the age of the
parents for determination of multiplier, since
they are the claimants in the case on hand, as per
the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma & Ors. v.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.1. Therefore, by
applying the appropriate multiplier of 13, the
High Court determined the loss of dependency at
Rs.14,04,000/- as against Rs.23,04,000/- as
considered by the Tribunal. After examining the
facts, evidence produced on record and
circumstances of the case, the High Court was of
the view that the contributory negligence on the
part of the deceased was higher than 20%, however,
it affirmed the contributory negligence as
determined by the Tribunal. Therefore, after 20%
deduction towards contributory negligence and addition towards other heads, the High Court, by
its impugned Judgment and order awarded a
compensation under all heads of Rs.11,39,200/-
with 9% interest per annum. Aggrieved by the same,
the appellant has filed these appeals.
7. It has been contended by the learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant Mr. Fakriddin that the
offending truck hit the two-wheeler from behind.
As a result, the deceased fell down and his two-
wheeler was dragged by the offending truck up to a
distance of about 25 feet. Thus, the finding of
the Tribunal as well as the High Court towards
contributory negligence of the deceased at 20% is
uncalled for. Further it was contended that the
High Court has reduced the compensation from
Rs.18,59,200/- to Rs.11,39,200/- which is contrary
to the principles laid down by this Court in
Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza & Ors. Vs. Ahmedabad
Municipal Transport Service2. 8.On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the
respondents contended that the High Court has
rightly reduced the compensation by deducting 50%
for personal expenses of the deceased since he was
unmarried at the time of his death and adopted a
(2013) 9 SCR 882
multiplier of 13 by considering the age of the
parents as per the guidelines laid down by this
Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
In our considered view, the deceased was 19 years
old and was pursuing his medical degree with good
marks at the time of the accident. With respect to
the future income of students pursuing
professional courses we refer to Arvind Kumar
Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.3,
wherein this Court held as under:-
“14. On completion of
Bachelor of Engineering
(Mechanical) from the
prestigious institute like
B.I.T., it can be reasonably
assumed that he would have
got a good job. The appellant
has stated in his evidence JUDGMENT
that in the campus interview
he was selected by Tata as
well as Reliance Industries
and was offered pay package
of Rs. 3,50,000/- per annum.
Even if that is not accepted
for want of any evidence in
support thereof, there would
not have been any difficulty
for him in getting some
(2010) 10 SCC 254
decent job in the private
sector. Had he decided to
join government service and
got selected, he would have
been put in the pay scale for
Assistant Engineer and would
have at least earned Rs.
60,000/- per annum. Wherever
he joined, he had a fair
chance of some promotion and
remote chance of some high
position. But uncertainties
of life cannot be ignored
taking relevant factors into
consideration. In our
opinion, it is fair and
reasonable to assess his
future earnings at Rs.
60,000/- per annum taking the
salary and allowances payable
to an Assistant Engineer in
public employment as the
basis….”
The Tribunal and the High Court have not taken into
proper consideration that the deceased was a JUDGMENT student of medicine at the time of the accident
while determining his future income. The courts
below have wrongly ascertained the future income of
the deceased at only Rs.18,000/- per month, which
in our view is too less for a medical graduate
these days. Therefore, the courts below have failed
in following the principles laid down by this Court
in this aspect in the above case. The deceased was
a diligent and outstanding student of medicine who
could have pursued his M.D. after his graduation
and reached greater heights. Today, medical
practice is one of the most sought after and
rewarding professions. With the tremendous increase
in demand for medical professionals, their salaries
are also on the rise. Therefore, we have no doubt
in ascertaining the future income of the deceased
at Rs.25,000/- p.m. i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- p.a.
Further, deducting 1/3rd of the annual income
towards personal expenses as per Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Deo Patodi and Ors4, and applying the appropriate multiplier of 13, keeping in mind the
age of the parent of the deceased, as per the
guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra),
we arrive at a total loss of dependency at
Rs.26,00,000/-[(Rs.3,00,000/- minus 1/3 X
Rs.3,00,000/-)X 13]. 10.Further, the Tribunal and the High Court have
erred in not following the principles laid down by
this Court in M. Mansoor & Anr v. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd.5 in awarding a meagre sum of
just Rs.15,000/- under the heads of loss of love
and affection. Accordingly, we award Rs.1,00,000/-
to the appellant towards the same. 11.With regard to the apportionment made by the
Tribunal and the High Court, we are of the view,
after considering the facts, evidence produced on
record and circumstances of the case on hand, that
there was no negligence on the part of the
deceased. The courts below have failed to examine the facts of the case on hand with respect to the
opinion of this Court given in Juju Kuruvila &
Ors. v. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors.6
From the evidence produced on record, the two-
wheeler of the deceased was dragged up to a stretch
2013 (12) SCALE 324
of about 20-25 feet on the road after the collision
with the offending truck. We are of the considered
view, that to be able to create this kind of
enormous effect on the two-wheeler of the deceased,
the offending truck must have been travelling at a
fairly high speed and that its driver did not have
sufficient control over his vehicle. The driver of
the offending truck should have been aware that he
was driving the heavy motor vehicle and taken
sufficient caution. We do not see any direct
evidence that shows negligence on the part of the
deceased that led to the accident. Therefore, as
per the principles laid down by this Court in the
case referred to above in this aspect, the contributory negligence apportioned by the courts
below on the part of the deceased is set aside. 12.The Tribunal and the High Court have further
failed in awarding only Rs.5,000/- towards funeral
expenses instead of Rs.25,000/- according to the
principles laid down by this Court in Rajesh &
Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors.7. Hence, we award
Rs.25,000/- towards the same. 13. In the result, the appellant shall be entitled
to compensation under the following heads:
1 Loss of Rs.26,00,000/- . dependency
2 Loss of love and Rs.1,00,000/- . affection
3 Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- .
TOTAL Rs.27,25,000/-
Thus, the total compensation payable to the
appellant by the respondent-Insurance Company will
be Rs.27,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 9%
p.a. from the date of filing of the application
till the date of payment. 14. Accordingly,JUDGMENTwe allow these appeals in awarding Rs.27,25,000/- with interest @9% p.a. The
respondent-Insurance Company shall either pay by
way of demand draft in favour of the appellant or
deposit the same with interest as awarded before
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after
(2013) 9 SCC 54
deducting the amount already paid to the
appellant, if any, within six weeks from the date
of receipt of the copy of this judgment. No Costs.
New Delhi, September 25,2014