The Father shall not be considered to be a dependent till he has a source of income.: Allahabad High Court
Father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Such an opinion was given by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court before Hon’ble Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma in the matter of Karan Singh vs  Mandaliya Prabandhak National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. – 443 of 2006]. 
The fact of the matter was that the deceased Vivek Kumar Singh son of appellant was traveling by bus from Delhi, as it arrived at the limit of police station Gabhana, a truck coming from the opposite direction (Aligarh) driven rashly and negligently by its driver collided with the bus in which deceased Vivek Kumar Singh sustained injuries and died. Learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and after appreciating the evidence brought on record by the parties, both oral and documentary held that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the offending vehicles and determined the liability 50-50% and awarded a sum of Rs. 85,000/- along with 6% interest. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff preferred the instant appeal.

The Hon’ble High Court held that the Tribunal errored in calculating in presuming the notional income of the deceased Rs. 15000/- p.a. on the place of Rs.36000/- and the multiplier prescribed for the age group of 21-25 years is 18.

Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court also held that “Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the 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 a large number of younger non- earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.”

Finally, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the appeal of the claimant and granted an award of Rs. 483,600/-
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The fact of the matter was that the deceased Vivek Kumar Singh son of appellant was traveling by bus from Delhi, as it arrived at the limit of police station Gabhana, a truck coming from the opposite direction (Aligarh) driven rashly and negligently by its driver collided with the bus in which deceased Vivek Kumar Singh sustained injuries and died. Learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and after appreciating the evidence brought on record by the parties, both oral and documentary held that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the offending vehicles and determined the liability 50-50% and awarded a sum of Rs. 85,000/- along with 6% interest. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff preferred the instant appeal. 
The Hon’ble High Court held that the Tribunal errored in calculating in presuming the notional income of the deceased Rs. 15000/- p.a. on the place of Rs.36000/- and the multiplier prescribed for the age group of 21-25 years is 18.

Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court also held that “Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the 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 a large number of younger non- earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.”

Finally, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the appeal of the claimant and granted an award of Rs. 483,600/-
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The Hon’ble High Court held that the Tribunal errored in calculating in presuming the notional income of the deceased Rs. 15000/- p.a. on the place of Rs.36000/- and the multiplier prescribed for the age group of 21-25 years is 18. 
Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court also held that “Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the 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 a large number of younger non- earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.”

Finally, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the appeal of the claimant and granted an award of Rs. 483,600/-
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court also held that “Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the 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 a large number of younger non- earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.” 
Finally, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the appeal of the claimant and granted an award of Rs. 483,600/-
Case : FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 4406 Appellant : Karan Singh Respondent : Mandaliya Prabandhak National Insurance Co. Ltd Counsel for Appellant : N.D. Shukla Counsel for Respondent : Jitendra Kumar Mangla Prasad Rai R.P. Ram S.M.Upadhyay Shyam Murari Upadhyay Smt Archana Singh Sudhir Dixit Hon ble Subhash Chandra Sharma J Heard Shri D.N. Shukla learned counsel for appellant as well as Ms. Manjima Singh Advocate holding brief of Ms Archana Singh learned counsel for Insurance Company and perused the record This appeal u s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the claimant appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 08.11.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge M.A.C.T. Court No. 6 Aligarh by which a sum of Rs 85 000 along with 6% interest has been awarded as compensation on account of death of deceased Facts in brief are that an application under Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the claimant appellant seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 8 00 000 with 12 % interest alleging that on 15.09.2000 deceased Vivek Kumar Singh son of appellant was traveling by bus bearing no. UP14B2331 from Delhi as it arrived in the limit of police station Gabhana a truck bearing no. H.N.V.9465 coming from opposite directiondetermined the compensation to the tune of Rs. 80 000 and further awarded a sum of Rs. 5000 funeral expenses. In this manner a total sum of Rs. 85 000 was determined as compensation payable to the claimant appellant Learned counsel for appellant submits that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs 15 000 p.a. and also applied the multiplier on the basis of the age of parents. No amount has been assessed for future prospect loss of estate love & affection. Very less amount has been assessed for funeral expenses. In this way award is very meagre. Learned counsel for respondent opposed the above 7. Considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for Insurance Company and perused the record The submission of learned counsel for appellant is that notional income of Rs. 15000 p.a. of deceased as presumed by the tribunal is very meagre. In this regard it is noteworthy that deceased was unskilled person whose income was not proved. In the case of Mohd. Unus Vs. Rais Najnien Begum and others2015(2)TAC526 this court enhanced the notional income of Rs.15000 to Rs.36000 p.a. Likewise in the case of State of Haryana and another Vs. Jasbir Kaur and others of the Table abovewhich starts with an operative multiplier of 18 reduced by one unit for every five years that is M 17 for 26 to 30 years M 16 for 31 to 35 years M 15 for 36 to 40 years M 14 for 41 to 45 years and M 13 for 46 to 50 years then reduced by two units for every five years that is M 11 for 51 to 55 years M 9 for 56 to 60 years M 7 for 61 to 65 years and M 5 for 66 to 70 years.” 11. The scheme of multiplier has been again affirmed by Hon ble the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2017 Supreme(SC) 1050 In the view of the dictum of Hon ble the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi the multiplier of 18 should be applied at the age of 21 25 because the age of deceased was between 21 25 years at the time of accident as per record. In this regard the multiplier applied by the learned tribunal seems to be incorrect 13. So far as the amount to be deducted towards personal expenses in the case of bachelor is concerned it has been held by Hon ble the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi 3 SLR601 Court we are of the view that where the deceased was married the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one third 1 3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3 one fourth where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 and one fifth where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. 31. 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 parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further subject to evidence to the contrary the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants because they will either be independent and earning or married or be dependent on the father. 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings only the mother would be considered to be a dependant and 50 would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However where the 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 non earning sisters or brothers his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one third and contribution to the family will be taken as two third.” In view of the above deduction in the head of personal expenses of the deceased who was bachelor at the time of accident are to be made to the extent of 50 % on the place 1 3 of the amount of the income 15. Further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that no compensation has been determined in the head of future prospects. Hon ble the Apex Court has held in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi that while determining the income an addition of 40 % of the established income should be awarded where the deceased being self employed or on the fixed salary was below the age of 40 years and an addition of 25 % where the deceased was between the age of 40 50 years and 10 % where the deceased was between the age of 50 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component Learned tribunal has not determined any amount of compensation in the head of future prospects as provided by Hon ble the Apex Court in the aforesaid case. In this regard it has committed the manifest error of law in not determining any amount in future prospects of the deceased. In view of the above the age of the deceased being between 21 25 years at the time of accident the additional amount of 40 % be added to the income as future prospect 18. As the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in support of amount for conventional head is concerned Hon ble the Apex Court has held in the case of Pranay Sethithat reasonable figure for conventional head namely loss of estate consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15000 40000 and 15000 respectively. The aforesaid amount should be enhanced @ 10 % in every three years In this way learned tribunal is not right on the point of making determination of amount for loss of estate and funeral expenses. Since deceased was unmarried therefore no amount in the head of loss of consortium can be given In view of the above facts and discussions the compensation to be paid to the claimant appellant has to be redetermined as under 3000 per 40 % ofabove to be added as Rs. 3000 + 1200 Rs. 4200 per 50 % ofdeducted as personal Rs. 2100 expenses of deceased Compensation after multiplier of 2100 x 12 x 18) Loss of Estate 4 53 600 Rs. 15 000 Rs. 15000 Total compensation awarded Rs. 4 83 600 21. The claimants appellants shall also be entitled to 7% simple interest as awarded by tribunal on the amount from the date of filing of application till the date of actual payment 22. Accordingly the appeal filed by the claimant appellant is Partly Allowed and award stands modified to the extent directed above and the claimant appellant shall be entitled for payment of Rs. 483 600 (four lacs eighty three thousand six hundred as determined above from the opposite parties no 1 & 2 in the same proportion as directed by the learned tribunal 23. No order as to costs Order Date : 24th November 2021 Subhash Chandra Sharma J