RAJWATI @ RAJJO & ORS.versusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

                       [2022] 17 S.C.R. 845                            845


                   RAJWATI @ RAJJO & ORS.                              A
                                 v.
    UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 8179 of 2022)
                      DECEMBER 09, 2022                                B
    [KRISHNA MURARI AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
      Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 – Compensation – In the
instant case, two persons died (on spot) of injuries suffered by the
accident caused by the truck driven in a rash and negligent manner
– Appellants (dependents of the deceased persons) filed claim          C
petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal – Tribunal
awarded compensation to the appellants but on appeal by insurance
company before the High Court, the High Court reduced the quantum
of compensation by relying upon the contention of insurance
company that the salary certificate and pay slip of the deceased
persons were taken into account by the tribunal without examining      D
the person who issued the said documents – On appeal, held: High
Court erred while rejecting the salary certificate and pay slip on
the ground that the person issuing it was not examined – The said
documents are conclusive proof of the income of the deceased and
were also corroborated by the statements of the wife of the deceased   E
and his co-workers – Once the actual occurrence of the accident
was established, the compensation awarded must be just and fair.
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Beneficial Legislation – Standard
of Proof – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of
legislation and as such, while dealing with compensation cases,        F
once the actual occurrence of the accident has been established,
the Tribunal’s role would be to award just and fair compensation –
Strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not
applicable in motor accident compensation cases – The standard
of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability
and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt       G
which is followed in criminal cases.
      Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Loss of Consortium – Tribunal
awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium – The compensation
under this head needs to be increased by 10% after every three
years.                                                                 H
                                845
846            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A           Allowing the appeals, the Court
             HELD: 1. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
      is a beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with
      compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the accident
      has been established, the Tribunal’s role would be to award just
B     and fair compensation. Strict rules of evidence as applicable in a
      criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation
      cases, i.e., to say, “the standard of proof to be borne in mind must
      be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of
      proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal
      cases”. [Para 19][852-F-G]
C
            United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shila Datta & Ors.
            (2011) 10 SCC 509 : [2011] 14 SCR 763; Sunita &
            Ors. v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation &
            Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 486 : [2019] 3 SCR 329; Kusum
            Lata & Ors. v. Satbir & Ors. (2011) 3 SCC 646 : [2011]
D           3 SCR 480 – relied on.
            2. The view taken by the High Court while rejecting the
      salary certificate and pay slip of the deceased merely on the
      ground that the person issuing the two aforementioned documents
      was not examined before the Tribunal. The said documents are
E     conclusive proof of the income of the deceased and were also
      corroborated by the statements of the deceased’s wife and his
      co-workers. As such, the High Court was not justified in assessing
      the income of the deceased at Rs.4,836/- per month on the basis
      of minimum wages fixed by the State at the relevant time. [Para
F     20][853-A-C]
            3. The grant of Rs.40,000/- by the Tribunal towards loss of
      consortium is insufficient, and deserves interference. The grant
      of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium is increased to
      Rs.44,000/- to each Appellant, amounting to a total of Rs.1,76,000/
G     -. Along with this, Rs.15,000/- each for the heads of ‘funeral
      expenses’ and ‘loss of estate’ is also increased to Rs.20,000/-
      each. [Para 31][856-H; 857-A]
            Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors
            (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100; United India
H
 RAJWATI @ RAJJO & ORS. v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE                         847
              COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

      Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur                 A
      & Ors. (2021) 11 SCC 780 – followed.
      Ramachanrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
      Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 : [2011] 9
      SCR 922; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v Nanu
      Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 – referred to.                         B
                       Case Law Reference
[2011] 14 SCR 763                 relied on                Para 11
[2011] 9 SCR 922                  referred to              Para 12
(2018) 18 SCC 130                 referred to              Para 13        C
[2019] 3 SCR 329                  relied on                Para 17
[2011] 3 SCR 480                  relied on                Para 18
[2017] 13 SCR 100                 followed                 Para 21
(2021) 11 SCC 780                 followed                 Para 22        D

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8179
of 2022.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal    E
No. 441 of 2019.
      With
      Civil Appeal No. 8180 of 2022.
      Anuj Bhandari, Gaurav Jain, Ms. Anjali Doshi, Advs. for the
                                                                          F
Appellants.
      S. L. Gupta, Ms. Gunjan Sharma, Mata Prashad Singh, Neeraj
Srivastava, Ms. Ranjana R. Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Dharm Pal Saini,
Varinder Kumar Sharma, Ms. Nidhi, Sarthak Arora, Advs. for the
Respondents.
                                                                          G
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      KRISHNA MURARI, J.
      These two appeals are directed against the final orders dated
29.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur
                                                                          H
848            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A     Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’) in two Miscellaneous
      Appeals (being S.B.Misc. Appeal No. 441/2019 and S.B. Misc. Appeal
      No. 561/2019) filed by Respondent No. 1 herein, seeking to set aside the
      judgment and award dated 26.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accident
      Claim Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kaman, District
      Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Learned Tribunal’) in Misc.
B
      Civil (M.A.C.) No. 18/2016 (13/2014) and Misc. Civil (M.A.C.) No. 14/
      2014. Both these appeals arise out of the same accident. Hence, they
      have been clubbed together and are being decided by this common
      judgment.
            2. In both the matters, the High Court allowed the appeal of
C     Respondent No.1 herein and modified the award passed by the Learned
      Tribunal, and reduced the compensation awarded to the Claimants/
      Appellants.
            CIVIL APPEAL No. 8179 OF 2022

D            3. The Appellants are the heirs and dependents of Ghasita Ram
      (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), who died on 29.10.2013 as a
      result of a motor accident. The deceased was working as a driver in
      PNC Infratech Ltd. On 29.10.2013, at around about 8:00 PM, the deceased
      (along with his co-worker Kanti Lal) was riding a motorcycle while
      returning home from work, when he was hit from behind by a truck
E     being driven by Respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner. The
      deceased and his co-worker were severely injured and died on the spot.
      The deceased has left behind five dependents who are the Appellants
      before this Court.
             4. The Appellants filed a claim petition [being Misc. Civil (M.A.C.)
F     No. 18/2016 (13/2014)] under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
      1988 before the Learned Tribunal, seeking compensation amounting to
      Rs.91,46,000/- along with interest. Vide Judgment and Award dated
      26.10.2018, the Learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of
      Rs.19,64,218.75/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of
G     filing of the claim petition till the realization of the decretal amount.
             5. The Learned Tribunal held that the deceased died as a result
      of the injuries suffered in the accident caused due to rash and negligent
      driving of Respondent No. 3 herein. The deceased’s age at the time of
      the accident was 41 years, and the same was ascertained by the Learned
      Tribunal on the basis of his driving license (Exhibit-A1) which recorded
H
  RAJWATI @ RAJJO & ORS. v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE                              849
      COMPANY LTD. & ORS. [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

his date of birth as 25.08.1972. Exhibit-19 (Salary Certificate) and Exhibit-   A
20 (Pay Slip) were produced. On the basis of pay slip, the Learned
Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.11,225/- per month.
To this, 25% was added towards future prospects bringing his monthly
income to Rs.14,031.25/-. The Learned Tribunal added a multiplier of
15, thereby calculating the compensation to be Rs.25,25,635/-
                                                                                B
(Rs.14,031.25 x 12 x 15). After deducting 1/4th of the total income towards
personal expenses (amounting to Rs.6,31,406.25/-), the Learned Tribunal
arrived at a compensation of Rs.18,94,218.75/-. Further, the Learned
Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000 towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate, and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
      6. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Learned Tribunal to              C
the Appellants under various heads was as under:



                                                                                D




       The Learned Tribunal calculated the rate of interest at 7% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realisation of     E
the decretal amount. The Respondents were held jointly or severally
liable to pay the said amount.
       7. Being aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the
High Court. Vide judgment and final order dated 29.04.2019, the High
Court held that the Learned Tribunal erred in relying on the salary             F
certificate (Exhibit-19) and pay slip (Exhibit-20) to ascertain the income
of the deceased at Rs.11,225/- per month, as the person who issued the
said documents was not examined before the Learned Tribunal.
Accordingly, the High Court assessed the income at Rs. 4,836/- per
month in view of the minimum wages fixed by the State at the relevant
time. Out of this, 1/4th amount was deducted towards personal expenses          G
of the deceased, bringing the figure to Rs.3,627/-. To this, a multiplier of
14 was added, and the compensation arrived at, was Rs.6,09,336/-
(Rs.3,627/- x 12 x 14). Further, 25% was awarded towards future
prospects (amounting to Rs.1,52,334/). Thus, the loss of dependency
was calculated at Rs.7,61,670/- (Rs.6,09,336/- + Rs.1,52,334/-). The High       H
850               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A     Court further awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, and
      Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, a total compensation
      of Rs.8,16,670/- (Rs.6,09,336/- + Rs.1,52,334/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/
      -) was awarded by the High Court. The remaining terms and conditions
      of the original award passed by the Learned Tribunal were affirmed.
B           8. Thus, the compensation awarded by the High Court under
      various heads is mentioned as under:




C



               9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
D            10. Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
      the Appellants argued that the High Court was not justifying in rejecting
      the pay slip and salary certificate of the deceased by holding that the
      person issuing the said documents was not examined. It was contended
      that the deceased’s wife (Appellant No. 1 herein) had testified before
      the Learned Tribunal that the deceased was earning around Rs.17,000/
E
      - from his employment as a driver and also by doing agricultural work.
      The same had been testified by his co-workers (who were also eye-
      witnesses to the accident) as well. It was further contended that Appellant
      No. 1’s evidence with regard to the salary of the deceased was
      corroborated by the salary certificate and pay slip of the deceased. There
F     was no occasion for the High Court to set aside the Learned Tribunal’s
      order with respect to a pure finding of fact and re-appreciate the entire
      evidence. It was also mentioned that the Appellants could not
      inadvertently produce the pass-book of the deceased (reflecting his salary
      as Rs.12,000/- per month) before the Learned Tribunal, and copies of
      the same have been filed before this Court.
G
            11. To support the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the
      Appellants placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of
      United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shila Datta & Ors. 1

      1
H         (2011) 10 SCC 509
     RAJWATI @ RAJJO & ORS. v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE                         851
         COMPANY LTD. & ORS. [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

      12. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court in the       A
case of Ramachanrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd.2
      13. It was next contended that the amount of Rs.40,000/- awarded
towards loss of consortium to five dependents is too meager and each
dependent is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the said          B
head. Reliance to support the aforesaid contention has been made to the
judgment of this Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs Nanu Ram & Ors.3
       14. Per contra, Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma and Ms. Nidhi,
Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, argued         C
that the salary certificate and pay slip of the deceased could not be
proved either before the Learned Tribunal or before the High Court, and
as such, grant of compensation awarded by the High Court is just, fair
and reasonable and requires no interference by this Court.
      15. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the
                                                                              D
learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire records.
         16. In the case of Shila Datta (Supra), this Court held as under:-
         “10. A claim petition for compensation in regard to a motor
         accident (filed by the injured or in case of death, by the
         dependant family members) before the Motor Accident Claims           E
         Learned Tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the Act is
         neither a suit nor an adversarial lis in the traditional sense.
         It is a proceeding in terms of and regulated by the provisions
         of Chapter XII of the Act which is a complete Code in itself.
         We may in this context refer to the following significant aspects
         in regard to the Learned Tribunals and determination of              F
         compensation by Learned Tribunals:
         …
         (ii) The rules of pleadings do not strictly apply as the claimant
         is required to make an application in a form prescribed under
                                                                              G
         the Act. In fact, there is no pleading where the proceedings
         are suo moto initiated by the Learned Tribunal.
         …
2
    (2011) 13 SCC 236
3
    (2018) 18 SCC 130                                                         H
852               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A              (vi) The Learned Tribunal is required to follow such summary
               procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons
               possessing special knowledge of and matters relevant to
               inquiry, to the assist it in holding the enquiry (vide Section
               169 of the Act).”
B           17. Reference in this connection may also be made to the
      observations made by this Court in the case of Sunita & Ors. Vs.
      Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. 4, wherein it was
      observed as under :-
               “It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once
               the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the
C
               accident, has been established, then the Tribunal’s role would
               be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the
               accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver
               of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would
               not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably,
D              while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents,
               the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of
               preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of
               proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in
               criminal cases.”
E             18. Similarly, in the case of Kusum Lata & Ors. Vs. Satbir &
      Ors.5, this Court observed that it is well known that in a case relating to
      motor accident claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case
      as it is required to be done in a criminal trial. The Court must keep this
      distinction in mind.
             19. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial
F
      piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with compensation cases,
      once the actual occurrence of the accident has been established, the
      Tribunal’s role would be to award just and fair compensation. As held by
      this Court in Sunita (Supra) and Kusum Lata (Supra), strict rules of
      evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motor
G     accident compensation cases, i.e., to say, “the standard of proof to be
      borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the
      strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is
      followed in criminal cases”.
      4
          (2020) 13 SCC 486
H     5
          (2011) 3 SCC 646
    RAJWATI @ RAJJO & ORS. v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE                            853
        COMPANY LTD. & ORS. [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

       20. In view of the above, we do not agree with the view taken by         A
the High Court while rejecting the salary certificate (Exhibit 19) and pay
slip (Exhibit 20) of the deceased merely on the ground that the person
issuing the two aforementioned documents was not examined before
the Learned Tribunal. The said documents are conclusive proof of the
income of the deceased and were also corroborated by the statements
                                                                                B
of the deceased’s wife (Appellant No. 1 herein) and his co-workers. As
such, the High Court was not justified in assessing the income of the
deceased at Rs.4,836/- per month on the basis of minimum wages fixed
by the State at the relevant time. Resultantly, we affirm the findings of
the Learned Tribunal so far as they relate to assessing the deceased’s
income at Rs.11,225/- per month on the basis of aforementioned two              C
documents. Annual income of the deceased, therefore, amounts to,
Rs.11,225/- x 12 = Rs.1,34,700/-.
       21. As far as the age of the deceased is concerned, the view of the
Learned Tribunal in ascertaining the same as 41 years on the basis of the
driving license of the deceased (Exhibit A1) was correct, and the same is
                                                                                D
hereby affirmed. However, the award of future prospects at 25% needs
to be interfered with. In view of the law laid down by a five-Judge Bench
of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi
& Ors.6, we are inclined to assess the future prospects of the deceased,
considering his age, at 30% of his annual income (Rs.1,34,700/-), which
works out to be Rs.40,410/-. Therefore, annual income accounting for            E
future prospects is Rs.1,34,700/- + Rs.40,410/- = Rs.1,75,110. In view of
Sarla Verma & Ors. vs Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.7, 1/4th of
the said amount would be deducted towards the deceased’s personal
expenses as he was married and had 5 dependants. 1/4th of Rs.1,75,110/-
is Rs.43,777.5/-. Rs.1,75,110/- – Rs.43,777.5/- = Rs.1,31,332.5/-.
                                                                                F
Accordingly, after applying the multiplier of 14 (as the deceased was aged
between 40 to 50 years), the loss of dependency would be assessed at,
Rs.1,31,332.5/- x 14 = Rs.18,38,655/-.
       22. The deceased left behind five dependants, i.e., the present
Appellants. In view of this, the grant of Rs.40,000/- by the Learned
Tribunal towards loss of consortium is insufficient in our view, and deserves   G
interference. A three Judge Bench of this Court in United India
Insurance Co. Ltd vs Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors.8, has
6
  (2017) 16 SCC 680
7
  (2009) 6 SCC 121
8
  (2021) 11 SCC 780                                                             H
854            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A     awarded spousal consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- and towards loss
      of parental consortium to each child at the rate of Rs.40,000/-. The
      compensation under these heads also needs to be increased by 10%
      after every three years. Accordingly, the grant of Rs.40,000/- towards
      loss of consortium is increased to Rs.44,000/- to each Appellant,
      amounting to a total of Rs.2,20,000/-. Along with this, Rs.15,000/- each
B
      for the heads of ‘funeral expenses’ and ‘loss of estate’ is also very
      meagre. In our considered opinion, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is liable to
      be paid towards funeral expenses. Similarly, award of Rs.15,000/- towards
      ‘loss of estate’ is liable to be increased to Rs.20,000/-.
            23. Hence, the total compensation payable to the Appellants under
C     various heads on the basis of the deceased’s income as ascertained by
      the Learned Tribunal would be:




D




             24. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the rate
E     of interest payable on the total compensation awarded is liable to be
      calculated at 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition
      before the Learned Tribunal till the date of realisation.
            CIVIL APPEAL No. 8180 OF 2022

F            25. The connected Civil Appeal No. 8180 of 2022 (Seema &
      Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.) is arising out
      of the same motor accident, and is based on the same set of facts and
      circumstances, the only difference being the age of the deceased Kanti
      Lal which was 38 years at the time of his death. The Learned Tribunal
      assessed the monthly income at Rs.11,225/-, and awarded 40% towards
G     future prospects bringing his monthly income to Rs.15,715/-. To this,
      the Tribunal added a multiplier of 15, thereby calculating the
      compensation to be Rs.28,28,700/- (Rs.15,715/- x 12 x 15). After
      deducting 1/4 th of the total income towards personal expenses
      (amounting to Rs.7,07,175/), the Tribunal arrived at a compensation of
H     Rs.21,21,525/-. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000 towards loss
  RAJWATI @ RAJJO & ORS. v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE                                   855
      COMPANY LTD. & ORS. [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-                    A
towards funeral expenses.
      26. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Learned Tribunal to
the Appellants under various heads was as under:

                                                                                     B




                                                                                     C
       The Learned Tribunal calculated the rate interest at 7% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realisation of the decretal
amount. The Respondents were held jointly or severally liable to pay the
said amount.
       27. On appeal filed by Respondent No. 1 herein, the High Court                D
vide judgment and final order dated 29.04.2019, held that the Tribunal
erred in relying on the salary certificate (Exhibit-17) and pay slip (Exhibit-
18) to ascertain the income of the deceased at Rs.11,225/- per month, as
the person who issued the said documents was not examined before the
Tribunal. Accordingly, the High Court assessed the income at Rs.4,836/
                                                                                     E
- per month in view of the minimum wages fixed by the State at the
relevant time. Out of this, 1/4th amount was deducted towards personal
expenses of the deceased, bringing the figure to Rs.3,627/-. To this, a
multiplier of 15 was added, and the compensation arrived at, was
Rs.6,52,860/- (Rs.3,627/- x 12 x 15). Further, 40% was awarded towards
future prospects (amounting to Rs.2,61,144/-), Rs.40,000/- towards loss              F
of consortium, and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
      28. Thus, the compensation awarded by the High Court under
various heads is mentioned as under:

                                                                                     G




                                                                                     H
856             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A            The remaining terms and conditions of the original award passed
      by the Tribunal were affirmed.
              29. Applying the same reasoning as in the case of Rajwati @
      Rajjo & Ors. Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
      (connected Civil Appeal No. 8179 of 2022), we are of the opinion that
B     the Tribunal has correctly determined the deceased’s monthly income
      as Rs.11,225/- while placing reliance on documentary evidence adduced
      in this regard, viz, the salary certificate (Exhibit-17) and pay slip (Exhibit-
      18), as well as the statements of the deceased’s wife and his co-workers.
      We do not agree with the view taken by the High Court while holding
      that since the person issuing the two aforementioned documents was
C     not examined before the Tribunal the income of the deceased was
      assessed at Rs.4,836/- per month in view of the minimum wages fixed
      by the State at the relevant time. Resultantly, we affirm the findings of
      the Tribunal so far as they relate to assessing the deceased’s income at
      Rs.11,225/- per month. Annual income of the deceased, therefore,
D     amounts to Rs.11,225/-x12 = Rs.1,34,700/-.
             30. As far as the age of the deceased is concerned, the view of
      the Tribunal in ascertaining the same as 38 years on the basis of the
      driving license of the deceased (Exhibit A2) was correct, and the same
      is hereby affirmed. However, the award of future prospects at 40%
E     needs to be interfered with. In view of the law laid down by a five-Judge
      Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra),we are inclined to assess
      the future prospects of the deceased, considering his age, at 50% of
      his annual income (Rs.1,34,700/-), which works out to be Rs.67,350/-.
      Therefore, annual income accounting for future prospects is
      Rs.1,34,700/- + Rs.67,350/- = Rs.2,02,050/-. In view of Sarla Verma
F     (Supra), 1/4th of the said amount would be deducted towards the
      deceased’s personal expenses as he was married and had 4 dependants.
      Hence, 1/4 th of Rs.2,02,050/- is Rs.50,512.5/-, Rs.2,02,050/- –
      Rs.50,512.5/- = Rs.1,51,537.5/-. Accordingly, after applying the
      multiplier of 15 (as the deceased was aged between 36 to 40 years),
G     the loss of dependency would be assessed at, Rs.1,51,537.5/- x 15 =
      Rs.22,73,062.5/-.
             31. The deceased left behind four dependants, i.e., the present
      Appellants. In view of this, the grant of Rs.40,000/- by the Tribunal
      towards loss of consortium is insufficient in our view, and deserves
H     interference. Placing reliance on the Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur
  RAJWATI @ RAJJO & ORS. v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE                            857
      COMPANY LTD. & ORS. [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

(Supra), the grant of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium is increased     A
to Rs.44,000/- to each Appellant, amounting to a total of Rs.1,76,000/-.
Along with this, Rs.15,000/- each for the heads of ‘funeral expenses’
and ‘loss of estate’ is also increased to Rs.20,000/- each.
      32. Hence, the total compensation payable to the Appellants under
various heads on the basis of the deceased’s income as ascertained by         B
the Learned Tribunal would be:




                                                                              C




       33. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the rate
of interest payable on the total compensation awarded is liable to be         D
calculated at 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition
before the Learned Tribunal till the date of realisation.
      34. As a result, the impugned judgments of the High Court dated
29.04.2019 in both the appeals are hereby set aside.
                                                                              E
       35. Accordingly, both the appeals stand allowed.

Devika Gujral                                              Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Mahendra Yadav, LCRA)

                                                                              F




                                                                              G




                                                                              H