GANGULY, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(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 hit her and ran over her. She was declared dead when taken to hospital Legal heirs of the deceased, her husband and two children, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) claiming Rs. 40,00,000/- as compensation, along with interest @ 24% p.a. Mact awarded total compensation of Rs 7,92.000/-. It calculated the same by arriving at gross salary of Rs.14,541/- (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 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 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.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the award of MACT, the claimants filed 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/ - over and above what was awarded by MACT Still aggrieved the claimants filed the present appeal before this Court The claimants, appellants in the present appeal, contended that: 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. 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 deceased that came into force from January 2006 (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. ;