SUNIL SHARMA & ORS.versusBACHITAR SINGH & ORS

                       [2011] 2 S.C.R. 576

A                    SUNIL SHARMA & ORS.
                                v.
                    BACHITAR SINGH & ORS.
                 (Civil Appeal No. 1440 of 2011)
                      FEBRUARY 07, 2011
8
      [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]

        MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988:

c       Fatal motor accident - Claim petition - Compensation
  - Computation of income of deceased - Deductions -
  Multiplier - Compensation towards revision in pay, loss of
  love and affection and consortium - Held : Deduction from
  the income of deceased towards HRA, CCA, EPF, GIS,
0 medical allowance should not have been made by Tribunal
  - As deceased was married, 1/3rd should be deducted from
  her income towards personal expenses - Annual income of
  deceased, thus, calculated to Rs. 1,89,6401- -Addition of 30%
  by way of future prospects allowed - Deceased being 41 years
  of age, multiplier 14 to be applied "'.'" Accordingly
E compensation calculated to Rs. 22,34,9601- - Further, a sum
  of Rs. 25,0001- awarded towards loss of love and affection and
  consortium - Thus, total compensation payable to claimants
  rounded off to Rs. 22, 60, 0001- with 6% interest from date of
  filing of claim petition - Respondents jointly and severally
F liable to make the payment.
      The legal heirs and dependants of a victim of fatal
  motor accident filed a claim petition before the Motor
  Accident Claims Tribunal, claiming Rs.40,00,000/- as
G compensation. The deceased was 41 years of age at the
  time of the accident and was employed. The Tribunal
  deducted House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory
  Allowance and Medical allowance etc and calculated her
  total carry home salary to be Rs.10,000/- (annual
H                           576
          SUNIL SHARMA & ORS. v. BACHITAR SINGH &           577
                          ORS.
        equivalent beh .g Rs.1,20,000/-. It made further deduction A
        of 40% towards personal expenses and, applying the
        multiplier 11, awarded Rs. 7,92,000/- as compensation
        along with 6% interest. The High Court applied the
        multiplier of 14 and accordingly enhanced the
        compensation by a further sum of Rs.2,16,000/-             B

               In the instant appeal filed by the claimants, it was
        . contended for the appellants that the Tribunal should not
          have deducted HRA, CCA, EPF, contribution towards
          Group Insurance Scheme, and repayment of computer
          advance from the income of the deceased; that the C
       . deduction of 40% towards personal expenses was not
          correct; that the revision of pay scale which had come
          into force before the death of the victim should have been
          taken into consideration; and that compensation towards
          loss of love and affection, consortium and funeral rites D
          should also have been allowed.

            Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD:
                                                                    E
            (a) Computation of Income :
·~··
            1.1 The deductions made by the Tribunal on account
        of HRA, CCA and medical allowance are done on an
        incorrect basis and should have been taken into F
        consideration in calculation of the income of the
        deceased. Further, deduction towards EPF and GIS
        should also not have been made in calculating the
        income of the deceased. However, the computer advance
        should not form a part of the monthly income. The G
        monthly income of the deceased thus amounts to
        Rs.15,351/-. Accordingly, the annual income of the
        deceased would amount to Rs. 1,84,212/-. [para 11-12)
        [583-B-C]
            Raghuvir Singh Mato/ya & Ors. v. Harl Singh Ma/viya &   H
            578      SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2011] 2 S.C.R.

       A Ors., 2009 (5) SCR 379 =(2009) 15 SCC 363 and Sar/a
         Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation &
         Anr., 2009 (5) SCR 1098 =(2009) 6 sec 121 - relied on.

                  (b) Deduction for Personal Expenses :

       B        1.2 As the deceased was married, a deduction of 1/
            3rd should be made to her income by way of personal
            expenses. After such deduction, the income of the
            deceased would thus amount to Rs.1,22,808/-, which is
            rounded off to Rs.1,22,800/-. [para 14) [583-G-H]
       c
                  (c) Revision in Pay Scale :

              1.3 In Sar/a Verma this Court laid down a 'rule of
         thumb' with respect to addition in income due to future
         prospects and observed that the addition should be only
       0 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. In the
         instant case, the deceased was aged 41 years. Thus, an
         addition of 30% by way of future prospects is allowed.
         The annual income of the deceased would thus be
         Rs.1,59,640/-. Considering the age of the deceased, a
       E multiplier of 14 is to be applied. Accordingly, annual
         dependency comes to Rs.22,34,960/-. [para 15-16) [584-
         A-C]

         Compensation for Loss of Love and Affection and
       F Consortium:

               1.4 In cases of fatal motor accidents, some amount
           must always be awarded by way of compensation for
           loss of love and affection and consortium. It is of course
           impossible to compensate for the loss of a life, in the
       G, instant case, that of a wife and mother, in terms of money.
         ' However, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded for loss of love
           and affection and consortium. [para 17] [534-D-E]
        '
       1 1.5 Thus, total compensation payable to the
 . H claimants-appellants would be Rs.22,59,960/- which is
   I
   I
  I
!
I
     SUNIL SHARMA & ORS. v. BACHITAR SINGH &                 579
                      ORS.
  rounded off to Rs.22,60,000/- with interest at the rate of A
  6% from the date of filing the claim petition. The
  respondents are jointly and severally liable to make the
  payment. (para 18 and 20) (534-F-G]

                        Case Law Reference:
                                                                    B
       2009 (5) SCR 379 ·        relied on             para 9

       2009 (5) SCR 1098         relied on             para 13

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
  1440 of 2011.                      ·                C

      From the Judgment & Order dated 07.08.2009 of the High
  Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in First Appeal No.
  2662 of 2008.
                                                                    D
       Ashwani Kumar, Kalyan V. for the Appellants.

       Manjeet Chawla for the Respondents.

       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       GANGULY, J. 1. Leave granted.                                E

       2. On 2.08.2006, around 4.40 PM, one Mrs. Sunita Sharma
  (aged 41 years) was returning to Panchkula from Chandigarh
  on her scooter, when the offending vehicle (a Tata 407 bearing
  registration no. HR-58-5649) driven by the second respondent F
  hit her and ran over her. She was declared dead when taken
  to hospital.

        3. Legal heirs of the deceased, her husband and two
   children, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims G
   Tribunal (MACT) claiming Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation,
· 'along with interest @ 24% p.a.

       4. MACT awarded total compensation of Rs.7,92,000/-. It
  calculated the same by arriving at gross salary of Rs.14,541 /-
                                                                    H
    580        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 2 S.C.R.

                                 ,
A (based on salary certificate provided by Haryana Women
  Development Corporation Ltd.), the employer of Mrs. Sunita
  Sharma. From the same, Rs.1310/-was deducted on various
  accounts- she was an income tax assessee, was paid HRA
  amounting to Rs.885/-, CCA Rs.200/- and medical allowance
B Rs.250/-. MACT concluded that these sums could not be taken
  into account in the total salary of Sunita. Thus, her total carry
  home salary was taken to be Rs.10,000/- (annual equivalent
  being Rs.1,20,000/-). A deduction of 40% was made for
  personal expenses, as she was a working woman and was also
c maintaining a scooter. Thus, dependency was calculated at
  Rs.72,000/-, to which a multiplier of 11 was applied. Hence,
  compensation was calculated at Rs.7,92,000/- along with
  interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

       5. Aggrieved by the award of MACT, the claimants filed
D an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for ·
  enhancement of compensation. The High Court applied the
  multiplier of 14, instead of 11 applied by MACT. The High Court
  took annual dependency same as that calculated by MACT, i.e.
  Rs. 72,000. Accordingly, High Court awarded Rs.2, 16,000/-
E over and above what was awarded by MACT.

        6. Still aggrieved, the claimants filed the present appeal
    before this Court. The claimants, appellants in the present
    appeal, contended that:
F
          a.    MACT should not have deducted HRA, CCA, EPF
                Group Insurance Scheme and computer advance
                from the income of the deceased and these
                deductions should not have been upheld by the
                High Court.
G
          b.    Deduction of 40% for personal expenses, which
                was upheld by the High Court, was not correct.

          c.    MACT and the High Court did not take into
                consideration the revision in pay scale of the
H
  SUNIL SHARMA & ORS. v. BACHITAR SINGH &                581
       ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
           deceased that came into force from January 2006      A
           (before her death) while calculating her income.

     d.    High Court did not grant any compensation for loss
           of love and affection, consortium and expenses
           towards funeral rites of the deceased.
                                                                B
     7. We have heard the parties and perused the evidence
on record, along with the judgments of the Tribunal and High
Court. We now proceed to deal with each point separately.

     a.    Computation of Income                                c
      8. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira
Srivastava & Ors. [AIR 2008 SC 845], S.B. Sinha J, has
observed that "The term 'income' has different connotations for
different purposes. A court of law, having regard to the change
in societal conditions must consider the question not only D
having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the
end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to
the members of the entire family. Loss caused to the family on
a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated
on monitory terms." His Lordship also stated that if some E
facilities were being provided whereby the entire family stood
to benefit, the same must be held to be relevant for the purpose
of computation of total income on the basis of which the amount
of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of
the applicants was required to be determined. This Court held F
that superannuation bencf:•c;, contributions towards gratuity,
insurance of medical policy for self and family and education
scholarship were beneficial to the members of the family. This
Court clarified that by opining that 'just compensation' must be
determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of G
each case. The basis for considering the entire pay packet is
what the dependents have lost in view of death of the
deceased. ft is in the nature of compensation for future loss
towards the family income" and that "the amounts, therefore,
which were required to be paid to the deceased. by his H
         582         SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2011) 2 S.C.R.
                                                                ...._

     A   employer by way of perks, should be included for computation
         of his monthly income as that would have been added to his
         monthly income by way of contribution to the family as
         contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. We
         may, however, hasten to add that from the said amount of
     B   income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be
         deducted."

               9. In Raghuvir Singh Mato/ya & Ors. v. Hari Singh
         Malviya & Ors., [(2009) 15 SCC 363), this Court has observed
         that dearness allowance and house rent allowance should be
     C   included for computation of income of the deceased.

              10. In the present case, Haryana Women Development
         Corporation Ltd. certified that the deceased had drawn her
         salary for the month of July, 2006 as under:
     D
               Basic Pay               -Rs.7,100/-

               D.P                     -Rs.3,550/-

               D.A.                    -Rs.2,556/-
     E
               HRA                    -Rs.885/-
                                                                        -·
               CCA                    -Rs.200/-

               Med. Allowance         -Rs.250/-
     F
               Gross Total            -Rs.14,541
               Deduction

               EPF                    -Rs.780/-
     G
               GIS                    -Rs.30/-

               Computer Advance        -Rs.500/-


--   H
               Total Deduction        -Rs.1.310/-
  SUNIL SHARMA & ORS. v. BACHITAR SINGH &                 583
       ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

    Net Payable= Rs.14,541 - Rs.1,310 = Rs.13,231/-               A

     11. Based on the aforementioned judgments, we are of the .
view that deductions made by the Tribunal on account of HRA,
CCA and medical allowance are done on an incorrect basis
and should have been taken into consideration in calculation
                                                                8
of the income of the deceased. Further, deduction towards EPF
and GIS should also not have been made in calculating the
income of the deceased.

     12. Thus, we calculate the income of the deceased by
taking the abovementioned allowances into consideration.          C
However, the computer advance should not form a part of the
monthly income. The monthly income of the deceased thus
amounts to Rs.15,351/-. Thus, the annual income of the
deceased would amount to Rs. 1,84,212/-.
                                                                  D
        b.   Deduction for Personal Expenses

     13. The Tribunal deducted 40% from the income of the
deceased by way of personal expenses and the same was
upheld by the High Court. We are of the view that both courts
erred in doing the same in light of the judgment in the case of   E
Sar/a Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation
& Anr., [(2009) 6 SCC 121], wherein this Court held:

    "we are of the view that where the deceased was married,
    the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the F
    deceased, should be ~ne-third (1/3rd) where the number
    of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th)
    where the number of dependent family members is 4 to
    6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent
    family members exceed six."                               G
    1
      .14. Hence, we hold that as the deceased was married, a
dedu'ction of 1/3rd should be made to her income by way of
persdnal expenses. After such deduction, the income of the
decea$ed would thus amount to Rs.1,22,808/-, which we round
off to Rs.1.22,800/-.                                             H
    584         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A          c.    Revision in Pay Scale

      15. In Sar/a Verma (supra), this Court laid down a 'rule of
  thumb' with respect to addition in income due to future
  prospects. This Court observed that the addition should be only
8 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years.
       16. In the present case, the deceased was aged 41 years.
  Thus, we allow an addition of 30% by way of future prospects.
  The annual income of the deceased would thus be Rs.1,59,640/
  -. Considering the age of the deceased, a multiplier of 14 is to
C be applied. Accordingly, annual dependency comes to
  Rs.22,34,960/-.

           d     Compensation for Loss of Love and Affection,
                 Consortium, Funeral Rites
D
       17. In cases of fatal motor accidents, some amount must
  always be awarded by way of compensation for loss of love
  and affection and consortium. It is of course impossible to
  compensate for the loss of a life, in the present case, that of a
  wife and mother, in terms of money. However, we can make _
E an attempt to do so. Accordingly we award Rs.25,000/- for loss
  of love and affection and consortium.

        18. Thus, total compensation payable to the claimants-
  a ppe 11 ants is Rs.22,59,960/- which is rounded off to
F Rs.22,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of
  filing the claim petition.
         19. Accordingly the appeal of the claimants-appellants is
    allowed to the extent indicated above.
G        20. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to make
    the aforesaid payment, after adjusting payment, if any, is made.
    Such payment is to be made within three months. No costs.

    R.P.                                     Appeal partly allowed.
H