How to decide a claim petition wherein Fatal Injuries were sustained by the deceased under MV act

In Sarla Verma v/s Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) = AIR 2009 SC 3104 guidelines for determination of multiplier, future prospects of the deceased, deduction towards personal and living expenditures are issued. The ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) was considered by the Three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari v/s Madan Mohan, reported in 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC) and it is held that ratio laid down in the case of Saral Verma (supra) should be followed by the all the Tribunals. The principles laid down in the case of Srala Veram and Reshma Kumari (supra) qua determination of multiplier, future prospects of the deceased, deduction towards personal and living expenditures are as under:­

 

a)                Choice of Multiplier:­

 

Age of the Deceased	Multiplier
Upto 15 years	15
15 to 20 years	18
21 to 25 years	18
26 to 30 years	17
31 to 35 years	16
36 to 40 years	15
41 to 45 years	14
46 to 50 years	13
51 to 55 years	11
56 to 60 years	9
61 to 65 years	7
Above 65 years	5

b)     What should be the multiplier in the case of Fatal injury case, where deceased was unmarried son/daughter:­

 

There are difference of opinion as to what should be the multiplier in the case of fatal injury case, where deceased was unmarried son/daughter. In Shyam Singh, reported in 2011 (7) SCC 65 = 2011 ACJ 1990 (SC), it has been held that Multiplier in the case of death of unmarried son/daughter, proper multiplier should be arrived at by assessing average age of parents of the deceased. But different views are taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of P. S. Somnathan v/s Dist. Insurance Officer, reported in 2011 ACJ 737 (SC), Amrit Bhanu Shali v/s NI Com., reported in 2012 ACJ 2002 (SC), Saktidevi v/s NI Com, reported in 2010 (14) SCC 575 and Reshma Kumari v/s Madan Mohan, reported in 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC) and lastly Hon'ble Constitutional Bench, in the case of N.I.Com Ltd v/s Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (3) GLH 536 =  AIR 2017 SC 5157. In the above referred cases it has been held that in the case of death of unmarried son/daughter, multiplier should be applied on the basis of age of the deceased and not on the basis of average age of the parents of the deceased.

 

c)     Future Prospect of Deceased:­

 

In para No.11 of the Sarla Verama's (supra) judgment it is held as under:­

“In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects. where the deceased had a

permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words 'actual salary' should be read as 'actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self­employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances”.

 

                  In the case of Sanjay Verma v/s Haryana Roadways, reported in 2014 (3) SCC 210, a three­judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex court, after considering the ratio laid down in the case of Reshma Kumari (supra) has held in para No.15 as under:­

15:­ Answering the above reference a three Judge Bench of this Court in Reshma Kumari v/s Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65 (para 36) reiterated the view taken in Sarla Verma (supra) to the effect that in respect of a person who was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments or who was self­employed the actual income at the time of death should be taken into account for determining the loss of income unless there are extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. Though the expression “exceptional and extraordinary circumstances” is not capable of any precise

definition, in Shakti Devi v/s New India Insurance Company Limited (2010) 14 SCC 575 there is a practical application of the aforesaid principle. The near certainty of the regular employment of the deceased in a government department following the retirement of his father was held to be a valid ground to compute the loss of income by taking into account the possible future earnings. The said loss of income, accordingly, was quantified at double the amount that the deceased was earning at the time of his death.

                  Even in para No.13 of the above referred judgment it is observed as under:­

“13. The view taken in Santosh Devi (supra) has been reiterated by a Bench of three Judges in Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others[(2013) 9 SCC 54] by holding as follows :

“8. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi case actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid down in Sarla Verma case and to make it applicable also to the self­employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self­employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years.

9. In Sarla Verma case, it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those self­employed or on fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15% in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter.”

         In the case of Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma, reported

in AIR 2015 SC (Supp) 1130, after referring to the ratio laid down in the case of Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh (supra) has held that parents of the self­employed, Pandit are entitled to get amount of compensation calculated on the basis of the future prospect of the deceased.

                  From the above referred observations, it becomes clear that where the deceased had a permanent job and in other cases, where it is proved that there was scope for the increase in the income of the deceased, addition, varying from 50% to 15% may be made, depending on the age of the deceased. Addition should be 50% and if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years, addition should be only 30% and an addition of 15% in the case where the deceased was between the age group of 50 to 60 years.

 

            However, it is also required to be noted that issue with respect to assessment of compensation on the basis of future prospect income has been referred to the Larger Bench. Please refer to the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpa, reported in (2015) 9 SCC 166 and Shashikala v/s Gangalakshmamma, reported in 2015 ACJ 1239 (SC).

 

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case N.I. Com v/s. Pranay Sethi, (supra) has held in para 61 as under:­

61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:­

(i)  The two­Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.

(ii)    As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.

(iii)     While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

(iv)     In case the deceased was self­employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the

age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

(v)   For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

(vi)    The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.

(vii)       The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.

(viii)      Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/­, Rs. 40,000/­ and Rs. 15,000/­ respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.

Therefore, in view of the judgment reported in the case of Parany Sethi (supra), all the Courts are required to be follow the directions contained under para 61 of the said judgment.

4.7.1.Ratio laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi will apply retrospectively.

2019 ACJ 65 (HP) – OI Com. V/s. Mathu Ram

 

It is also required to be noted that House Rent Allowance, Medical

Allowance, Dearness Allowance, Dearness Pay, Employees Provident Fund, Government Insurance Scheme, General Provident Fund, C.C.A. etc should be treated as part and parcel of the income of the deceased, while calculating income of the deceased for the purpose of computing compensation. Reference may be made to ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Sharma v/s Bachitar Singh, reported in 2011 ACJ 1441 (SC) also see Vimal Kanwar v/s Kishore Dan, reported in 2013 ACJ 1441.

 

When notional income of the deceased is taken into consideration for the assessment of the compensation, whether in such situation, future prospect of the deceased can be taken into consideration­ Held­ Yes. ­ Please refer to the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of V. Mekala v/s. Malathi, reported in 2014 ACJ 1441 (SC) and also case reported in 2016 ACJ 2742 (Ker).

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Tokas v/s. New India Insurance Com. Ltd, AIR 2019 SC 3921 = 2019 (20) SCC 688 has held that even in the case where notional income has been taken into account for calculation of amount of compensation, future prospect of the deceased shall be taken into consideration.

                     Similar view has been taken in the case of Rajendra Singh v/s. N.I.Com., AIR 2020 SC 595.

                       Similar view has been taken by the Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kirti v/s. Oriental Insurance Com., ACJ 2021 1 (SC) (FB)also see Meena Pawaia v/s. Ashraf Ali, 2022 ACJ 528 (SC).

                     The amount of compensation has to be decided in one go and while passing the future eventualities, same shall be taken into consideration at the time of deciding claim petition.

1HDFC Ergo General Insu Com. V/s. Mukesh Kumar, 2021 ACJ 2665 (SC)

d)      Deduction towards Personal and Living Expenditures:­

In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para No.61 (v) that, for determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

 

         In the case of Sarla Veram's case (supra) it is held as under:­ “Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one­third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one­fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one­fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six”.

It is further held in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) as under:­

“Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents and siblings is likely to be cut drastically”.

 

Meaning thereby, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one­third (1/3^rd) where the

number of dependent family members is less than 3, one­fourth (1/4^th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one­fifth (1/5^th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six. And in the cases where deceased was unmarried son/daughter, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one­half.

 

4.13.1. It has been further held in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) that:­ “Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non­earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one­third and contribution to the family will be taken as two­third”.

 

Plain reading of above referred observations, makes it clear that, unless, it is proved that father of the deceased was not having independent income, father of the deceased cannot be treated as dependent. Same analogy applies in the cases of where claim petition is preferred by the sibling/s of deceased who was/were

unmarried brother/sister of such deceased. But if, it is proved that father of the deceased was not having independent income, father of the deceased can be treated as dependent. In the cases where claim petition is preferred by the mother, sibling/s who were solely dependent on the income of the of deceased, in such cases, one­ third (1/3^rd) may be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased.

         In Sarla Verma (supra) it has been held in par 26 that:­

“In addition, the claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/­ under the head of 'loss of estate' and Rs. 5,000/­ towards funeral expenses. The widow will be entitled to Rs. 10,000/­ as loss of consortium'.

 

 But a bench of Three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh v/s Rajbir Singh, reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 has held that claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/­ under the head of loss of care and guidance for minor children, Rs. 25,000/­ towards funeral expenses and the widow will be entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/­ as loss of consortium.

 

            Ratio laid down in the case of Rajesh (supra) qua consortium, funeral expenditure etc is followed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Savita v/s Bindar Singh, reported in 2014 ACJ 1261 (SC) and Anjani Singh v/s Salauddin, reported in 2014 ACJ 1565 (SC).

4.17.1 After the ratio laid down by the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), two judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case of Bhagwati Yadav v/s. O.I. Com., 2018 ACJ 11 has awarded Rs.1,00,000/­ for loss of estate and funeral, Rs.50,000/­ for loss of consortium and

Rs.50,000/­ for loss of love and affection.

 

         In the case of Jiju Kuruwila v/s Kunjujamma Mohan, 2013 ACJ 2141 (SC), it is held that each child of the deceased is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/­ under the head of loss of love and affection. Same is followed in 2015 ACJ 598 (SC) – Neeta v/s Divisional Manager.

 

            With respect to conventional heads, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), para No.61 (viii) has held that, reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/­, Rs. 40,000/­ and Rs. 15,000/­ respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.

              In the case of Magma General Insurance Com. Ltd. V/s. Nanu Ram @ Churhu Ram, 2018 (18) SCC 130 it has been held that parents are entitled to compensation for “loss of filial consortium” for death of children in the accident. In the said case Supreme Court under its powers u/A 142 of the Constitution of India awarded Rs.40,000/­ each to the father and sister of the deceased.

                        In the case of UII Com. V/s. Sainder Kaur @ Satvinder Kaur, 2020 SCC Online 410 (SC) (FB) it has been held claimant are entitled for Parental Consortium (Consortium to child for the death of parent), Filial   Consortium (Consortium to parent/s for the death of the child) over and above the Spouse Consortium.

                        After taking into consideration the ratios laid down in the Magma (supra) and Satinder (supra) recently Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NIA Com. V/s. Smt. Somwati, 2020 (9) SCC 644 has held that over and above the Spouse Consortium, claimants are entitled for parental and filial Consortium also.

Now, the question is, when a departure from the above referred guideline should be made? In this regards, reference is required to be made to the ratio laid down in the case of K. R. Madhusudhan v/s Administrative Officer, reported in AIR 2011 SC 979. In the said case deceased was aged 53 years and was working as Senior Assistant in Karnataka Electricity Board. As per Board Agreement, after completion of five years, pay revision was compulsory and evidence was produced by the claimants showing that if deceased would have been alive he would have reached gross salary of Rs. 20,000/­ p.m. Hence, even though deceased was above 50 years of age, it is held that claimants are entitled to compensation calculated on the basis of such increased income.

 

4.20.1           Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.19605 of 2017 (SLP

(C) No.37617 of 2016), dated 22 November, 2017, reported in 2018 ACJ 5, Hem Raj v/s. O.I.Com. has find merit in the submission made on behalf of the claimants that view taken in Pranay Sethi's case is no bar future prospects being taken at level higher 25% in the case deceased above 40 years or 50% in the case the deceased was below 40 years if evidence on record so warrant and standardization may be increased based on presumption but when there is an actual evidence led to the satisfaction of the Tribunal/Court that future prospects was higher than the standard percentage, there is no bar to the Tribunal/Court awarding higher compensation on that basis.

Also see AIR 2018 SC 2088 = 2018 ACJ 1434 (SC) Sureshchandra

Bagmal Doshi v/s. NIA Com.; N.I. A. Com. V/s.  Urmila  Shukla, 2021 ACJ 2081 (SC).

However Hon'ble Karnantak High Court in the case of Raju v/s.

Manager, UII Com, 2022 ACJ 1174 has held that promotion letter showing that deceased would have received higher salalry would not make good and income at the time of accident only should be taken in to consideration.

 

            The issue is whether Tribunal can pass an order to deduct TDS on the interest received on the awarded amount of compensation, amounting to more than 50,000 or not.

It has been held that the Tribunal can deduct TDS only if the amount of interest for the financial year payable to each claimant exceeds Rs.50000/­ Please refer the ratio laid down and reported in 2007 ACJ 1897 (GUJ) and 2012 ACJ 1157 (MP).

                        In the year 2013, amendment in the Income Tax Act came to into effect and, therefore, it has been held that the principle laid down as above shall not be made applicable as there is an amendment in the Income Tax Act, Section 194­A(3)(ix). Please refer to ratio reported in 2016 ACJ 1231 (Chh).

                        In the recent decision an order calling upon the Insurance Company to pay TDS/deduct TDS on the interest part of compensation is held to be not sustainable ­ Please refer to ratio reported in 2016 ACJ 1639 (P&H), 2017 ACJ 505 (Mad), Court on its Motion vs. H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd, reported in 2014 SCC online HP 4273. 2017 ACJ 1727 (Guj) – N.I. Com vs. Bhoyabhai Haribhai Bharvad. And also case reported in 2017 ACJ 1775 (Bom), wherein Gujarat Judgment has been followed.

 

Several steps in an elaborate Scheme have been enumerated to ensure that compensation is deposited as per the said Scheme. ­

2017 ACJ 253 (Mad)

Compassionate appointment given to widow­ whether Tribunal can deduct dependency benefit on that count?­ Held­ No.

2012 (2) GLH 246.­ Girishbhai Devjibhai, ­ 2012 AAC 3065 (All)­ SC judgments followed. ­ 2013 ACJ 129 (P&H). 2014 ACJ 822 (Guj)

But in the recent decision, Supreme Court (FB) has taken contrary view­ Please refer 2016 ACJ 2723 = 2016 (9) SCC 627

= AIR 2016 SC 4465 – Reliance General Insurance Com. V/s Shashi Sharma.

            Wife died in the vehicular accident – Husband ­ remarriage within 8 months thereof – Whether in such circumstances, husband can be treated as LR of deceased wife?­ Held­ Yes. Please refer to the judgment reported in 2017 ACJ 4 (All).

Abrogation of Right – death of the mother (Claimant) of the deceased during pendency of the claim petition – she did not have any dependent­ Whether in such situation her right to claim compensation abrogated? ­ Held­ No. It is further held that in such situation Tribunal is not required to calculate compensation on the basis of the age of the mother. ­ 2017 ACJ 192 (Ker).

Tribunal found discrepancy in figures of Salary income and Income Tax Returns (ITR) and ignored ITR while calculating compensation

– High Court relied upon the ITR and granted compensation based on ITR – Supreme Court has held that since ITR has never been discredited by the opponents though they were having sufficient opportunities and confirmed the order passed by High Court.

UII Com. V/s. Indiro Devi, 2018 ACJ 2051 (SC).

In the case of Shashikala v/s. Gangalakshamma, reported in 2015

(9) SCC 150, Supreme Court has held that if the age of the

 (supra) in the case of Parminder Singh v/s. New India Assurance Ltd., 2019 (7) SCC 217, where the injured claimant suffered 100% functional disability, therefore, it has been held that even in the injury case claimant is entitled for compensation calculated on the basis of Future Loss of Income. Also see ­ Lalan D. @ Lal v/s. O.I.Com., AIR 2020 SC 4508.

            The Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Dev Yadav v/s. Naresh Kumar, AIR 2020 SC 4424, wherein the injured claimant, aged 20 years who was earning his livelihood by working as typist/data entry operator has suffered vehicular injuries and ultimately lost his arm, which has been assessed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as 65% physical permanent disability and, therefore, as held that claimant is entitled to get compensation calculated on the basis of loss of future prospect which 40% as he was 20 years of age at the time of accident. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when victim has sustained serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement, claimant is entitled to get compensation calculated on the basis of loss of future prospect too.

         The Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Erudhaya Priya v/s. Express Transport Corporation, AIR 2020 SC 4284, wherein the injured claimant and a software engineer, aged 23 years has suffered vehicular injuries and his disability is assessed as 31.1% permanent disability. Considering the nature of her injuries Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that claimant is entitled to get compensation calculated on the basis of loss of future prospect which 50% as he was 23 years of age at the time of accident. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when victim has sustained serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement, claimant is entitled to get compensation calculated on the basis of loss of future prospect too.

            What should be the enhancement for future prospect in the cases where injured suffered 100% functional disability:- In the case of Rajan v/s Soly Sebastian, reported in 2015 (10) SCC 506, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when a professional like Driver suffers Permanent Partial Disability (100% functional disability), 50% enhancement for future prospect is required to be made.

         A Whether dependents of the injured claimant who died his natural death during the pendency of the claim petition are entitled to get any amount of compensation:-

               Maxim “Actio Personalis Moritur­cum­Persona” is applicable in such cases. Even provisions of Section 306 (along with Illustrations) of Indian Succession Act, 1925 would apply. In the cases of Pravabati Ghosh & Anr. Vs. Gautam Das & Ors., reported in 2006 (Suppl) 1 GLT 15, relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Melepurath Sankunni Ezuthassan v/s Thekittil Geopalankutty Nair, reported in 1986 (1) SCC 118, and the case of M. Veerappa v/s Evelyn Sequeria & Ors., reported in 1988 (1) SCC 556, has held in paragraph 8 of the judgment thus:­

“the right to sue will not survive in favour of his representatives, for, in such an appeal, what the legal representatives of such a claimant would be doing is to ask for compensation and the right to ask for compensation to be awarded does not survive if the claimant dies before the claim for compensation is awarded or decreed in his favour, the cause of death not being the injuries sustained by the deceased claimant”.

                                    Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Jenabai wd/o

Abdulkarim Musa v/s GSRTC, reported in 1991 GLR 352 and in the case of Surpalsing Gohil vs. Raliyatbahen M savlia, reported in 2009(2) GLH 217 has taken a different view and has held that Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 and maxim Actio personalis moritur cum persona is not applicable in its widest sense in an accident causing injuries to a victim.

            Hon'ble Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, in a reference namely, Madhuben Maheshbhai Patel v/s Joseph Francis Mewan, reported in 2015 (2) GLH 499 has held that in case where injured dies natural death, claim petition does not abate and his/her L.R. can continue with the claim petition but same shall be confined only so far as loss to estate is concerned which includes personal expenses incurred on the treatment by original claimant.

        After the above referred reference case was placed before the Ld. Single Judge for deciding  the amount of compensation. In the final order dated 15^th December, 2015 passed in First Appeal No.1528 of 2009 it has been observed as under...

 

“Applying such principles in the case on hand, I may notice that the claimant was engaged in the business of selling waste cloth and claimed to be earning Rs. 100/­ per day. She was aged about 45 years. Even without granting future rise in income on such uncertain business, her income could be safely adopted at Rs. 3000/­ per month. Applying agreed disability of 20%, her monthly loss of income would be Rs. 600/­ or Rs. 7200/­ per annum. She survived for 11 years post accident. The claimants would, therefore, receive additional compensation of Rs. 79,200/­ towards future loss of income till her death. Such amount shall be paid with simple interest

@8% from the date of claim petition till actual payment. Appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly. R & P to be transmitted back to the Trial Court”.

            Meaning thereby, the Gujarat High Court has not only awarded compensation to the Lrs of the deceased under the head of Loss of Income but also under the other conventional heads also.

 

               After considering the ratio laid down by the various High Court and ratio laid down in the case of Madhuben Maheshbhai Patel (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v/s. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon, Civil Appeal 4800 of 2021, dated 16^th August, 2021 has held that the loss of estate would include expenditure on medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, Doctor’s fee, etc. including income and future prospects which would have caused reasonable accretion to the estate but for the sudden expenditure which had to be met from and depleted the estate of the injured, subsequently deceased.

            Legal Representative ­ married daughter and sister filed four claim

petitions as LRs of her father, mother, brother and sister in law – whether such claim petitions are maintainable?­ Held­ yes but she is entitled to get amount u/s 140 and funeral expenses only. Please refer to 2017 ACJ 234 (Guj).

But also see 2018 ACJ 1057 (Mad) also see 2018 ACJ 1083 (Mad)

            Abrogation of Right – death of the mother (Claimant) of the deceased during pendency of the claim petition – she did not have any dependent­ Whether in such situation her right to claim compensation abrogated? ­ Held­ No. It is further held that in such

situation Tribunal is not required to calculate compensation on the basis of the age of the mother. Please refer to the judgment reported in 2017 ACJ 192 (Ker).

            Wife and Son of Driver­Owner died in the accident – in the said accident Driver­owner also died­ whether in such situation claim petition is maintainable against IC without joining the Driver­ owner?­ Held­ Yes. 2017 ACJ 688 (Del).

            Driver & Owner died before the reply could be filed in the claim petition – Tribunal deleted the said opponent as his LRs have not been joined – Whether such order is sustainable?­ Held­ No. ­ As Section 155 of the MV Act would apply and CPC dealing with abatement would not apply. ­ 2016 ACJ 1554 (HP)

            When injured has failed to prove the relevant record before the Medical Board for assessing percentage of disability, in such case no compensation can be awarded under the head of the loss of future earnings. ­ Sanjay Kumar v/s. Sunil, 200 ACJ 718 (SC)