SUNIL BATISH Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of FAO Nos. 1035 and 1156 of 1988. However, the facts are being taken from FAO No. 1035 of 1988. The present appeal is filed by the claimants against the award dated 28.7.1988, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh in MACT case No. 22 of 1987, for enhancement of compensation.

(2.) The claim petition arose out of an accident which occurred on 21.11.1986 at about 8.15 A.M., in which Shri Naresh Kumar Batish died. The deceased was going on scooter bearing No. CHG 5630 from Sector 7 towards PGI, Chandigarh. He was a pillion rider on the scooter. The accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving of a vehicle bearing No. CHW 2073, which came from behind and struck the scooter, as a result of which Naresh Kumar Batish died. Deceased was employed as Works Inspector in PGI, Chandigarh and was 36 years of age at the time of his death. The claimants were widow and two children of the deceased. Separate claim petition was filed by the mother of the deceased. The Tribunal, inspite of having the salary certificate of the deceased on record showing that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 1460/- per month in the month of October 1986, still assessed his dependency at Rs 800/ per month and by applying a multiplier of 18, the compensation of Rs. 1,72,800/- was awarded. In my view, while assessing the compensation, the Tribunal has totally lost sight of the fact about the future prospects of the deceased, who was in permanent employment with PGI as Works Inspector. Guidance for assessing compensation by taking into consideration future prospects in life is available vide judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and Ors. 1994 (2) P.L.R. 1 (SC) and Smt. Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav 1996 (2) P.L.R. 656 (SC).

(3.) In Kerala State Road Transport Corporation's case (Supra) Hon'ble the Supreme Court while considering the issue on future prospects in life and estimation of income in that light observed as under: 13. ...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. 1,032/- 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. 2,000/- as the gross income. From this has to be deducted his personal living expenses, the quantum of which again depends on various factors such as whether the style of living was Spartan or Bohemian. In the absence of evidence it is not unusual to deduct one-third of the gross income towards the personal living expenses and treat the balance as the amount likely to have been spent on the members of the family and the dependents. This loss of dependency should capitalize with the appropriate multiplier. In the present case we can take about Rs. 1,400/- per month or Rs. 17,000/- per year as the loss of dependency and if capitalized on a multiplier of 12, which is appropriate to the age of the deceased, the compensation would work out to (Rs. 17,000/- x 12 = Rs. 2,04,000/-) to which is added the usual award for loss of consortium and loss of the estate each in the conventional sum of Rs. 15,000/-