Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) SYED Husain was a registered clerk of an Advocate and while coming to the High Court as a pillion rider on a scooter, which was driven by his brother, met with an accident on 7.12.1990 at around 9.30 a.m. A truck No. DIG 5735, which was being driven rashly and negligently by the truck driver hit Syed Husain from the back grievously injuring him and the scooter driver. The scooter was crushed beyond repair. Sri Syed Husain was taken to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The father, wife and three children of the deceased filed a claim application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming a compensation of Rs. 15,70,000/ - contending that he was a registered clerk of an Advocate of the High Court and was getting a salary of Rs. 3500/ - per month and that his family has a longevity of 80 years. The deceased was of 47 years and had he not died would have lived upto 80 years. The claim petition was contested by the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company denying the claim. Various issues were framed and, the Tribunal, after considering the material evidence on record, gave an award of Rs. 2,30,000/ - alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. The claimants, being aggrieved by this award, has filed the present appeal under section 173 of the Act.
(2.) THE Tribunal, in its award, found that the offending truck was insured with New India Assurance Company and that the truck driver had a valid licence. The Tribunal also found that the driver of the truck was at fault and had hit the deceased from behind and that the truck was driven rashly and negligently. The Tribunal also found that the income of the deceased was Rs. 3500/ - per month and that he had five dependants. The Tribunal however, held that he was spending a sum of Rs. 984/ - on himself, which amounted to 28% of his salary and adopted a multiplier of 08 considering that his age was 47 years and, accordingly, calculated the compensation at Rs. 2,30,000/ -. Sri Navin Sinha, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Tribunal had committed a manifest error in deducting 28% of his salary towards personal expenses, which was totally excessive and arbitrary and against the dictum given by the Supreme Court as held in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited and others : 2012 (92) ALR 717 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court found that where a family consists of five persons, 1/10th of the income of the deceased should be deducted for personal expenses and the rest should be left for the family. It was also contended that as per second Schedule of the Act the multiplier of 13 should have been used where the age was more than 45 years and, therefore, the Tribunal committed a manifest error in using the multiplier of 08. Sri Sinha further, contended that nothing has been awarded towards future prospects and, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Santosh Devi (supra) and in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others : (2013) 9 SCC 54, future prospects to the extent of 50% should have been awarded. Sri Sinha further, contended that for loss of consortium, only an amount of : (2013) 9 SCC 54 8000/ - has been awarded whereas as per the decision of the Supreme Court, a minimum of Rs. 1.0 lakh should have been awarded and similarly, for funeral expenses, Rs. 25,000/ -should have been awarded.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company Sri V.C. Dixit conceded that the Tribunal erred in using multiplier of 08 and as per second Schedule of the Act, the multiplier of 13 should have been used but submitted that the appellants are not entitled for funeral expenses and loss of consortium and that at best personal expenses to the extent of 1/4 should have been deducted. Sri Dixit further, submitted that the appellants are not entitled to claim any compensation on future prospects and that the Supreme Court itself has referred the matter to a larger Bench.;