HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU CIMA No. 60/2006 Date of Decision: 22.12.2008 Union of India and ors. Vs Sujan Singh & ors Coram: Mr. Justice J.P.Singh, Judge. Appearing counsel: For Appellant (s) : Mr. Ajay Sharma, CGSC. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.P.Sapolia, Advocate. i) Whether to be reported in Press/Journal/Media : Yes/No ii) Whether to be reported in Digest/Journal : Yes/No Union of India and its functionaries have filed this appeal questioning Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu’s award of 26th of September, 2005 directing the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.3,44,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as compensation for the death of Bodh Raj, who had died while travelling in appellants’ Tipper bearing Registration No. 98E-66285 , when it had rolled down near Ungai Nallah, Doda, to the claimants. Appearing for the appellants, Mr. Ajay Sharma, Central Government Standing Counsel, submits that the Tribunal had erred in assessing monthly income of the deceased at the time of his death by taking his prospective income into consideration when neither any such case had been projected nor proved during the currency of the claim petition. 2 Per contra, Mr. Sapolia submitted that the deceased was a Carpenter by profession and would increase his monthly income in the years to come, which would have been a source of continual income of the claimants to which they have been deprived because of his death and in that view of the matter, no fault can be found with the line of reasoning adopted by the Tribunal in assessing his monthly income by taking into consideration his prospective future income. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Appellants’ counsel’s submission that the Tribunal had fallen in error in taking average monthly income of the deceased at the time of his death at Rs.4500/-, by considering future income of the deceased, when no such case of his expected future income had either been set up or proved by the respondents, is found sustainable in view of the law laid-down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bijoy Kumar Dugar versus Bidya Dhar Dutta & Ors., reported as (2006) 3 SCC, 242, where while dealing with the question, their lordships had held as follows:- “In the present case, the earning of the deceased and consequently the amount which he was spending over the members of his family i.e. dependency is to be worked out on the basis of the earnings of the deceased at the time of the accident. The mere assertion of the claimants that the deceased would have earned more than Rs.8000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month in the span of his life time cannot be accepted as legitimate income unless all the relevant facts are proved by leading cogent and reliable evidence before MACT. The claimants have to prove that the deceased was in a trade where he would have earned more from time to time or that he had special merits or qualifications or opportunities which would have led to an improvement in his income. There is no evidence produced on record by the claimants regarding future 3 prospects of increase of income in the course of employment or business or profession, as the case may be.” The findings of the Tribunal taking monthly income of the deceased at the time of his death at Rs.4500/- is thus required to be modified slashing the income of the deceased to Rs.3000/- per month which had been found by the Tribunal to be his monthly income on the basis of the evidence which the respondents had produced in the case. As the claimants have been proved to be wholly dependant on the earnings of the deceased so he would have not afforded to spend much on his personal expenditure. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case when no evidence had been led by the appellants to controvert the case set up by the claimants as to their dependency on the income of the deceased, I am of the opinion that rather than deducting one third out of his income, one fourth of his income needs to be deducted from his monthly income to determine the dependency of the family on the earnings of the deceased. Thus calculated, the dependency of the family on the earnings of the deceased would come to Rs. 27,000/- per annum. Adopting 9 as the multiplier, which had been selected by the Tribunal as the appropriate multiplier, the compensation payable to the claimants would thus come to Rs. 2,78,000/- which includes an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as loss of love and affection, Rs. 15,000/- for loss of Estate and Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses. 4 I do not find any merit in appellants’ submission that amount awarded by the Tribunal on account of loss of estate and loss of love and affection is in any way excessive keeping in view of the inflation, facts, and circumstances of the case, besides the latest trend noticed in judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India awarding higher amount of compensation for love and affection (U.P SRTC v. Krishna Bala, (2006) SCC, 249). The award of the Tribunal is, accordingly, modified to be an award for an amount of Rs.2,78,000/- as against Rs.3,44,000/-, along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The amount deposited by the appellants in this Court shall be released in favour of the claimants in terms of the modified award along with interest accrued thereon minus, however, the amount already received by them. The excess amount along with proportionate interest thereon shall be released in favour of the appellants. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed on above terms. ( J. P. Singh ) Judge Jammu 22.12.2008 Anil Raina, Secy.