Sureshchandra Bagmal Doshi vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd

2. It is not necessary to go into the details of the facts, as those are not really liable to be examined in view of the limited controversy Digitally signed by DEEPAK MANSUKHANI Date: 2018.04.18 before us. The claim was laid on the basis that the deceased daughter 15:28:18 IST Reason: 1 was working in the company of original respondent No.4 as an International Internal Sales Engineer at a monthly salary of Rs.6,273. She had a B.E. (Civil) qualification. Her husband, after an early marriage, had unfortunately passed away in the year 1996 and since then she was living with her parents, the claimants. The deceased had a quick successful progression in her career from the initial post of a Secretary, and the claim was based on the prospective earning of the deceased of more than Rs.25,000 per month.

3. We may note that qua the accident, the driver of the vehicle in which the deceased daughter was travelling died, and there was apportionment of contributory negligence to the extent of 80 per cent qua the truck driver, and 20 per cent qua the Tata Sierra, the two vehicles, which met with the accident. However, this would not affect the claim qua the parents before us.

4. There is no dispute that the assessed income of the deceased at the time of the accident was Rs.6,273 per month. This is a finding of fact, both by the Tribunal and the High Court. The Tribunal, however added approximately 100 per cent towards future rise in income and 2 considered the prospective income at Rs.12,000 per month, and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of deceased, the Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency or the future economic loss at Rs.8,000 per month and thereafter a multiplier of 16 was applied. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a sum of Rs.15,36,000 towards loss of dependency benefit; Rs.15,000 towards conventional amount under the head loss of estate; Rs.15,000 towards loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000 towards funeral expenses totaling to Rs.15,71,000 in terms of an award dated 29.3.2007. The claimants were also held entitled to interest @ 12 per cent per annum on the award amount from the date of application till realization.

7. The High Court, however, fixed the multiplier at 18 instead of 16 as fixed by the Tribunal, as the deceased was aged about 25 years, and that would have been the appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verma2. The High Court also examined the two other pleased made on behalf of the claimants, i.e., that the award of Rs.15,000 for loss of estate and Rs.15,000 for loss of love and affection was inadequate.

15. The result of the aforesaid is that after deducting 50 per cent of the amount towards personal expenses and adding 100 per cent towards future rise in income, we would be back at the figure of Rs.6,273 per month to which a multiplier of 18 has to be applied. The amount would come to Rs.13,54,968. The amount under the conventional heads would be Rs.70,000, i.e., totaling to Rs.14,24,968 rounded off at Rs.14,25,000. The award of interest would continue @ 12 per cent as awarded by the Tribunal.

16. We may also notice the litigation of two decades, which the appellants have had to go through before different forums to claim the amounts due to them and we are of the view that they should be held entitled to costs throughout, which we assess at Rs.25,000. 8

17. We, thus, allow the appeal in the aforesaid terms with costs assessed as aforesaid.

April 18, 2018.