Case: Savita Vs. Bindar Singh

of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. *** *** *** 18. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Vermas judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he / she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation. 6. After considering the decisions of this Court in Santosh Devi (supra) as well as Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra), we are of the opinion that it is the duty of the Court to fix a just compensation. At the time of fixing such compensation, the court should not succumb to the niceties or technicalities to grant just compensation in favour of the claimant. It is the duty of the court to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured or the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. Therefore, it will be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to award just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation judging the situation prevailing at that point of time with reference to the settled principles on assessment of damages. In doing so, the Tribunal can also ignore the claim made by the claimant in the application for compensation with the prime object to assess the award based on the principle that the award should be just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation. 7. In the instant case, it appears that the Tribunal and the High Court have also failed to consider the fact-situation of this case, without taking any pragmatic view and further without considering the price-index prevailing at the moment, assessed the compensation ignoring the principle laid down by this Court in the recent decisions (see: Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra) as also Santosh Devi (supra)) and without revisiting the present situation, came to the conclusion and awarded the total compensation for a sum of [pic]4,28,000/-. In our opinion, such award suffers from proper assessment of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and High Court on the conventional heads, i.e., loss of consortium to the spouse, future prospects of the deceased and further the sum awarded under the head funeral expenses, cannot be said to be a just compensation. In our opinion, there should have been an endeavour on the part of the Tribunal as well as the High Court to consider the inflation factor and further they should have considered the amounts fixed by the court several decades ago on such heads. Accordingly, as has been pointed out by this Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra), we hold that the compensation under the head loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses amounts should have been awarded under such heads, that is, for [pic]1,00,000/- and [pic]25,000/- respectively and we award such compensation under the said heads. So far as the head of salary is concerned, we do not express any opinion since we have found that the appellant could not prove the salary certificate and for such reason, we do not intend to interfere with the opinion expressed by the Tribunal on the established principle of notional income and accordingly, we do not want to disturb the said notional income while calculating the total compensation in favour of the appellant. 8. We have failed to understand why the Tribunal as well as the High Court lost its sight to hold that the victim could have had future prospects with regard to the amounts the victim used to earn during his life-time? Therefore, the notional income also needs to be increased by at least 30% and thereby the claimant is entitled to get the benefit of [pic]900/- being the future prospects; the said amount should be added to the notional income of the victim. Therefore, it appears that the total salary along with future prospects of the victim should have been calculated at [pic] 3,000/- plus [pic] 900/- amounting to [pic] 3,900/- per month. The total deduction on personal expenses, in our opinion, should have been one third of [pic] 3,900/- amounting to [pic] 1,300/-. Therefore, salary after deduction would come to [pic] 2,600/- and the multiplier should be applied at 17, as has been done correctly by the Tribunal after taking into account the age of the victim. In this process, the total amount of compensation to be paid would be [pic] 2,600 x 17 x 12 amounting to [pic]5,30,400/-. 9. We modify and reassess the compensation in accordance with the Calculation Table set out hereunder: CALCULATION TABLE Salary (Since it is not proved sufficiently as per the order of the Tribunal)Rs. 3,000/- per month Future prospects (at the rate of 30% as prayed for) (as per para8)[30% of Rs. 3,000 = Rs. 900/-]Salary is (3,000+ 900) =Rs. 3,900/- Deduction towards personal expenses (as per Schedule II)1/3rd of Rs. 3,900 = 1,300/- Total salary after adding future prospects and deducting personal expensesRs.3,900 – Rs.1,300 = Rs.2,600/- Multiplier i.e. 17 (as per Schedule II and Section166Rs. 2,600 x 17 x 12 =Rs. 5,30,400/- Total amount of compensation(as per para 8)Rs. 5,30,400/- Compensation under the head of loss of consortium (as per para7)Rs. 1,00,000/- Compensation under the head of funeral expense (as per para 7)Rs. 25,000/- Grand TotalRs. 6,55,400/-

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]6. After considering the decisions of this Court in Santosh Devi (supra) as well as Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra), we are of the opinion that it is the duty of the Court to fix a just compensation. At the time of fixing such compensation, the court should not succumb to the niceties or technicalities to grant just compensation in favour of the claimant. It is the duty of the court to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured or the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. Therefore, it will be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to award just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation judging the situation prevailing at that point of time with reference to the settled principles on assessment of damages. In doing so, the Tribunal can also ignore the claim made by the claimant in the application for compensation with the prime object to assess the award based on the principle that the award should be just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation7. In the instant case, it appears that the Tribunal and the High Court have also failed to consider the fact-situation of this case, without taking any pragmatic view and further without considering the price-index prevailing at the moment, assessed the compensation ignoring the principle laid down by this Court in the recent decisions (see: Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra) as also Santosh Devi (supra)) and without revisiting the present situation, came to the conclusion and awarded the total compensation for a sum of [pic]4,28,000/-. In our opinion, such award suffers from proper assessment of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and High Court on the conventional heads, i.e., loss of consortium to the spouse, future prospects of the deceased and further the sum awarded under the head funeral expenses, cannot be said to be a just compensation. In our opinion, there should have been an endeavour on the part of the Tribunal as well as the High Court to consider the inflation factor and further they should have considered the amounts fixed by the court several decades ago on such heads. Accordingly, as has been pointed out by this Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra), we hold that the compensation under the head loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses amounts should have been awarded under such heads, that is, for [pic]1,00,000/- and [pic]25,000/- respectively and we award such compensation under the said heads. So far as the head of salary is concerned, we do not express any opinion since we have found that the appellant could not prove the salary certificate and for such reason, we do not intend to interfere with the opinion expressed by the Tribunal on the established principle of notional income and accordingly, we do not want to disturb the said notional income while calculating the total compensation in favour of the appellant8. We have failed to understand why the Tribunal as well as the High Court lost its sight to hold that the victim could have had future prospects with regard to the amounts the victim used to earn during his life-time? Therefore, the notional income also needs to be increased by at least 30% and thereby the claimant is entitled to get the benefit of [pic]900/- being the future prospects; the said amount should be added to the notional income of the victim. Therefore, it appears that the total salary along with future prospects of the victim should have been calculated at [pic] 3,000/- plus [pic] 900/- amounting to [pic] 3,900/- per month. The total deduction on personal expenses, in our opinion, should have been one third of [pic] 3,900/- amounting to [pic] 1,300/-. Therefore, salary after deduction would come to [pic] 2,600/- and the multiplier should be applied at 17, as has been done correctly by the Tribunal after taking into account the age of the victim. In this process, the total amount of compensation to be paid would be [pic] 2,600 x 17 x 12 amounting to [pic]5,30,400/-