SUREKHA CHARAK Vs. AJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are widow, minor children and widow mother of Late Shri Baldev Singh who died in a matter vehicle accident involving vehicle No. JK02-A-3977. The accident admittedly took place on 12.10.95 in which the deceased was seriously injured and remained under treatment in Medical College Hospital, Jammu from 12.10.1995 to 28.10.1995 when he succumbed to injuries. The deceased it is admitted was an officer of the Jammu & Kashmir Bank drawing Rs.9816/- as monthly pay. He was 35 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal by its award dated 9.4.1997 awarded Rs.8,47,500. The appellants have challenged the award on the following grounds(i) that the Tribunal has erred in selecting multiplier of 12 as also multiplicard by ignoring age and future prospects considering the stable nature of job (ii) that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted Rs.15,000/- on account of income tax which the deceased was paying on the salary (iii) that inadequate amount has been awarded for loss of expectation loss of consortium and funeral expenses and loss to the estates.

(2.) Mr. J. P. Singh learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit that was no justification for the Tribunal to have made deduction on account of income tax payable by the deceased while assessing the loss of income. He next argued future prospects have been completely ignores by the Tribunal. Even PWs Shamsher Singh and Yogesh Kumar have stated that deceased had bright future prospects of promotion in the Bank. Mr. Choudhary on the other hand argued that the amount awarded is more than what could be termed as just and fair compensation. According to him there is no evidence about the future promotion prospects of the deceased in the absence of which the Trbunal has rightly fixed the monthly income of deceased at Rs.10,000/- Regarding the selection of multoplier the Tribunal had to select the multiplier to determine just and fair compensation and 2nd schedule to section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act cannot be applied blindly as laid down by the Supreme Court in U. P. State Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra 1996 ACJ 831. His further argument is that income tax had to be deducted from the income because it is not the income and as such cannot be termed loss of income to the dependants.

(3.) The finding of the tribunal is that although monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 9816/-, but taking into account his stable nature of job it was fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month. Since family comprised of three adults and two minor members, income was divided by 8 and the personal expense of the deceased including transport charges was found to be Rs.3000/-. So family dependency was assessed at Rs.7000/- and to ensure that the appellants are able to generate as such income by investing the capital feed on long term basis, tribunal selected multiplier of 12 after making deduction of income tax which he admittedly was paying. This is how the Trbunal awarded Rs.8,28,000/-. There can be no doubt that the deceased was having stable job and according to PWs Shamsher Singh and Yogesh Kumar he had fair chance of Promotion also. Even in the absence of promotion, salary of a salaried person continues to increase with the increase of price index. So the tribunal should have taken this aspect of the matter into consideration while determining the loss of income. The question of allowing some increase for future prospects was considered by the Supreme Court in General Manager Kerala State Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1. Applying the ratio of the judgment to the facts of the case because deceased was holding stable job, a proportionate increase in his income is justified, but while increasing the amount the court has to take into consideration certain imponderables such as life expectancy of the deceased as well as chances that the deceased may not have lived upto estimated period of life expentancy and the chances that he may have got better employment or might have lost his employment or income altogether. So income cannot be multiplied just by assuming that promotion would have earned him much more than what he was getting on the date of his retirement. However, even the claimants have established the increase of income upto Rs.12,000/- only and considering the impenderables as noticed above it is reasonable to assume that his salary would have been higher than he was drawing at the time to death provided he had survived. So it is reasonable to hold that considering the stable nature of his job his monthly salary would have registered increase and it is fair to assess the loss of income assuming his monthly salary at Rs.12,000/- per month instead of Rs.10,000/-. So it is Rs.12,000/- which has to be divided by 8. When so divided his personal dependency would come Rs.3000/- per month. Since he was having his own scooter an amount of Rs.500/- as petrol expenses and an amount of Rs.500/- as out of pocket expenses would be reasonable. So personal expenses of the deceased would be Rs.12,000/- minus Rs.4000/- = Rs.8000/- The Family dependency of the appellants would thus be reduced to Rs.8000/- per month. Now the next question the selection of a suitable multiplier to ensure that the appellants have income of Rs.8000/-. The monthly family dependency having been assessed at Rs.8000/- annual dependency would be Rs.8000x12 = Rs.96,000/-. Since he was paying Rs.15,000/- per year as income tax with the increase of the salary rate of income tax would also increase. So instead of Rs.15,000/- Rs.20,000/- are to be deducted. It leaves a balance of Rs.76,000/- although considering the age of the deceased multiplier of 16 would be applicable under the 2nd schedule to section 163-A, but in Trilok Chanra s case (supra) the Supreme Court has laid down relevant multiplier would be one by which just and fair compensation is determined. In this behalf observations of their lordship are as follows :