Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a motor accident claim before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The deceased Pravin was driving a motorcycle with pillion rider Nilesh when a tempo owned by respondent no.1 and insured by respondent no.2 came from the opposite direction at high speed, went on the wrong side, and dashed the motorcycle. The deceased fell on the ground, sustained head injuries, and died on the spot. An offence was registered against the tempo driver. The parents of the deceased, as original applicants, filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane. The owner of the tempo did not contest the proceeding; only the insurer contested, denying the allegations and not examining any witness. The Tribunal directed the insurer and insured to pay compensation of Rs.5,07,000 along with other benefits. The appellants sought enhancement, contending that the Tribunal erred in discarding the part-time salary certificate, applying multiplier 10, and deducting one-third for personal expenses. The Tribunal had considered salary income of Rs.6,227.35 from Dragger Forst Tolls Ltd but discarded the part-time income of Rs.3,000 per month from Hawai Industries because the witness Balaram Deshmukh, though authorized by the owner, stated he had no personal knowledge of the certificate's contents. The High Court held that in claim petitions strict proof is not required; a salary certificate produced from proper custody by an authorized witness should be accepted unless challenged as forged or fabricated. Since no such suggestion was made, the Tribunal committed an error in discarding it. The High Court further held that the multiplier should be 18 instead of 10, as the deceased's completed age was 25 years, following Sarla Verma and Alpa Rajesh Shah. The argument that the memo sought multiplier 16 was rejected because the appellant could rely on Supreme Court observations at the time of argument. The High Court also held that since the deceased was survived only by two parents, deduction towards personal expenses should be one-half, not one-third, and that future prospects at 50% and other benefits under Sarla Verma should be granted. The compensation was recalculated as monthly income Rs.9,227, future prospects Rs.4,613, dependency Rs.6,920, multiplier total Rs.14,94,774, funeral expenses Rs.18,000, loss of estate Rs.18,000, and loss of consortium Rs.96,000, totaling Rs.16,62,774. After adjusting the Tribunal's award of Rs.5,07,000, the respondents were directed to pay Rs.11,55,774 with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till realization within eight weeks, and additional court fee was to be paid. The appeal was allowed and the award modified.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Compensation - Admissibility of Salary Certificate - Strict proof not required in claim petitions; certificate from proper custody by authorized witness admissible despite lack of personal knowledge - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Tribunal erred in discarding part-time salary certificate Exhibit 30 because witness Balaram Deshmukh lacked personal knowledge though authorized and certificate unchallenged; Held that Tribunal should have considered part-time salary Rs.3,000 per month (Paras 6-9). B) Motor Accident Compensation - Determination of Multiplier - Multiplier to be based on completed age of deceased; for age 25 years, multiplier 18 applies - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Tribunal applied multiplier 10; High Court applied Sarla Verma and Alpa Rajesh Shah, holding completed age 25, therefore multiplier 18; no bar to argue 18 despite memo seeking 16 (Paras 4-10). C) Motor Accident Compensation - Deduction for Personal Expenses - When deceased survived only by parents, deduction is one-half, not one-third - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Tribunal deducted one-third; High Court held two parents are dependants, so deduction one-half (Para 10-11). D) Motor Accident Compensation - Future Prospects and Other Benefits - Deceased with permanent job below 40 years entitled to 50% future prospects, funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Court granted 50% future prospects and allowed funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium as per Sarla Verma; total compensation enhanced to Rs.16,62,774 with interest (Paras 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in discarding the part-time salary certificate, applying multiplier 10 instead of 18, deducting one-third instead of one-half for personal expenses, and whether future prospects and other benefits under Sarla Verma should be granted.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Award dated 21 June 2008 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane, modified. Respondents directed to pay jointly and severally compensation of Rs.16,62,774; after adjusting Rs.5,07,000 already awarded, appellants entitled to Rs.11,55,774 with 7.5% interest from date of petition till realization; payment within 8 weeks; additional court fee to be paid.
Law Points
- In claim petition strict proof not required
- Salary certificate from proper custody admissible despite witness lacking personal knowledge
- Multiplier to be determined by completed age of deceased
- Deduction for personal expenses one-half when deceased survived by parents only
- Future prospects at 50% for deceased below 40 years with permanent job
- Benefits per Sarla Verma and Alpa Rajesh Shah cases
