Lalit Ram Durga vs. Jitesh Khobragade

Facts

This appeal was filed by the claimants (Lalit Ram Durga and Vimla Durga) against an award dated 11/08/2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Bastar, Dantewada. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,73,388/- as compensation for the death of Jaideepak Durga in an accident on 30/07/2016, caused by the rash and negligent driving of a Swift Car. The claimants had sought Rs. 22,00,000/-, stating the deceased was 20 years old and earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. The insurance company (Respondent No. 3) had contested liability, alleging the driver lacked a valid license and the vehicle lacked fitness and permit. The Tribunal initially decided issues in favour of the claimants and awarded compensation.

Held

The Court found the Tribunal's disbelieving of the salary certificate to be just and proper, as no corroborating evidence was presented. However, considering the deceased's age, nature of the job, date of accident, prevailing minimum wages, and available evidence, the Court reassessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/-. Applying the principles from Supreme Court judgments in Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi, and Magma General Insurance, the Court recalculated the total compensation. This included Rs. 6,000/- monthly salary, 40% future prospects (Rs. 8,400/- monthly), Rs. 1,00,800/- yearly income, Rs. 50,400/- after deduction for personal expenses, a multiplier of 18 (resulting in Rs. 9,07,200/-), Rs. 30,000/- for funeral expenses and loss of estate, Rs. 80,000/- for filial consortium, Rs. 1,52,188/- for medical expenses, and Rs. 25,000/- for travel expenses, totaling Rs. 11,94,388/-. The enhanced compensation amounted to Rs. 5,21,000/-. The insurance company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with 6% interest within 60 days. Specific directions were given for investment of a portion of the compensation in fixed deposits for the appellants.

Key Issues

1. Whether the monthly income of the deceased was correctly assessed by the Tribunal? (Question of fact and law, concerning evidence of income). 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on all heads is on the lower side? (Question of fact and law, concerning quantum of compensation). Arguments for the Appellants: The appellants argued that the deceased's monthly income of Rs. 8,000/- was wrongly disbelieved by the Tribunal, despite a salary certificate being proved by an employee of the company. They also contended that the compensation awarded on other heads was insufficient and sought enhancement. Arguments for Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company): The insurance company supported the award, arguing that the Tribunal rightly disbelieved the salary certificate as no other supporting documents like attendance registers, payment registers, or GST certificates were filed.