MANGLI Vs. AJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT.

(2.) The appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation for the death of one Jai Prakash who had died in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. While appellant No.1 is the mother, appellants No.2 to 6 are the brothers and sisters of the deceased. The Tribunal after holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and that the deceased had died because of the injuries sustained in the said accident awarded a total compensation of Rs.96,048/- in favour of the claimants including the wife of the deceased. Since the wife of the deceased had married during the pendency of the claim petition, the Tribunal directed a sum of Rs.36,000/- along with interest @ 12 % p.a. to be paid to the widow of. the deceased and the balance sum to his mother, namely, appellant No.1. The award is challenged only on one ground, namely, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased. It is submitted by Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant, that after taking the income of the deceased at minimum wage payable under the Minimum Wages Act as in the year 1987 the Tribunal ought to have considered the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased and assessed compensation on the basis of such income.

(3.) There are merits in the arguments advanced by Mr.Goyal. It is now well settled that while assessing just compensation, the Courts and the Tribunals are required to take into consideration the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased. The deceased at the time of his death was 24 years of age. Income of the deceased at the time of his death has been taken to be Rs.1,000/- p.m. With the rise in the cost of living and inflation, the wages are increased every year by issue of successive Notifications by the Government. The minimum wages in 1990 were less than three times the wages in 2002. Thus applying the principles laid down in Sarla Dixit Vs. Balwant Yadav, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1274, this Court would not be in error in taking the average income of the deceased at least at one and a half times his income as on the date of his death, Thus taking the income of the deceased at Rs 1,500/- p.m. and deducting 1/3rd from this towards his personal expenses, the loss of dependency to the family would come to Rs.1,000/- p.m. Applying the multiplier of 12 as has been applied by the Tribunal, to which there is no challenge, loss of dependency to the family would come to Rs.1,44,000/-. Adding to this the conventional figure of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, funeral expenses, etc. compensation payable to the family would come to Rs.1,59,000/-. Since the widow of the deceased had re-married, the Tribunal has awarded 37.5% of compensation in favour of the widow and the balance 62.5% in favour of the mother of the deceased. Appellant No.l who is the mother of the deceased would, therefore, be entitled to the compensation of Rs.99,375/- rounded off to Rs.99,400/-.