Case: DOLMA DEVI & ORS Vs. MOHINDER KUMAR GOEL & ORS

1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgement dated 09.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in FAO No. 168 of 2012. By the said judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the compensation already awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur. 3. The appellants case in brief is that, on 02.04.2007 at around 11:30 A.M., while the deceased Nand lal, a traffic constable, was doing his official duty was hit by a truck which was being driven in a negligent manner. Although, he was rushed to the hospital immediately, but he then died at around 5:30 P.M on the same day. The deceased was the sole bread earner of the family. Aged 37 years, the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 13,064/- per month as per salary certificate produced on record, hence the annual income of the deceased was Rs.1,56,768/. The present appellant being the wife of the deceased preferred M.A.C. No. 70/2007 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.40,00,000. Vide order dated 15.09.2011, the tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 17,83,640/- along with interest at the rate of Rs.7.5% per annum from the date of filling till the amount is deposited with the tribunal. Aggrieved by the above compensation amount, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court in FAO No. 168/2012, seeking an enhancement to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000. Vide order dated 09.12.2016, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the earlier award granted by the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that, the High Court grossly erred while upholding the award passed by the Tribunal, as it did not calculate 50% of the salary as future prospects of the deceased. Further, the High Court erred in upholding the earlier judgment passed by the tribunal as the multiplier was applied on the lower side contrary to the settled position of law. 5. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned judgment contending that the High Court has plausibly dealt with the above raised contentions and thereafter considered the compensation amount to be justified. Hence it did not disturb the earlier amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. We have heard learned counsel from both the sides and carefully perused the material on record. It is evident on perusal of the award passed by the tribunal which was subsequently upheld by the High Court that both the courts have plainly ignored the future prospect of the deceased person, which is gross violation of the law laid down by this court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017)16 SCC 680 . The future prospects would necessarily mean advancement in future career, earnings and progression in one?s life. The promotional avenues, career progression, grant of selection grades etc. are some of the features for considering one?s future prospects in one?s career. 7. On perusal of the facts, it is clear that the deceased who was a constable aged 37 years used to draw a salary of Rs.13,064/- per month. Taking 50% of the annual salary for the future prospect, it results to Rs. 78,384/- and the total salary would aggregate up to Rs. 2,35,152/- (i.e., Rs.1,56,768+ Rs.78,384).Further, taking 1/4th of Rs.2,35,152 would result to be Rs. 58,788/-. Therefore, the annual loss of dependent would be around Rs.2,35,152-Rs.58,788/-= Rs.1,76,364/. Further, this court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , has held that if the age of the deceased is between 36-40 years, then the multiplier applicable would be 15. Keeping in view the aforesaid law laid down in the Sarla Verma?s case (Supra) since the deceased was 37 years, the appropriate multiplier will be 15. Hence, the appellants are entitled to for a compensation to the tune of Rs. 26,45,460/-.

Decision:
1[ds]6. We have heard learned counsel from both the sides and carefully perused the material on record. It is evident on perusal of the award passed by the tribunal which was subsequently upheld by the High Court that both the courts have plainly ignored the future prospect of the deceased person, which is gross violation of the law laid down by this court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017)16 SCC 680 . The future prospects would necessarily mean advancement in future career, earnings and progression in one?s life. The promotional avenues, career progression, grant of selection grades etc. are some of the features for considering one?s future prospects in one?s career7. On perusal of the facts, it is clear that the deceased who was a constable aged 37 years used to draw a salary of Rs.13,064/- per month. Taking 50% of the annual salary for the future prospect, it results to Rs. 78,384/- and the total salary would aggregate up to Rs. 2,35,152/- (i.e., Rs.1,56,768+ Rs.78,384)Further, taking 1/4th of Rs.2,35,152 would result to be Rs. 58,788/-. Therefore, the annual loss of dependent would be around Rs.2,35,152-Rs.58,788/-= Rs.1,76,364/. Further, this court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , has held that if the age of the deceased is between 36-40 years, then the multiplier applicable would be 15. Keeping in view the aforesaid law laid down in the Sarla Verma?s case (Supra) since the deceased was 37 years, the appropriate multiplier will be 15. Hence, the appellants are entitled to for a compensation to the tune of Rs. 26,45,460/-.