ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. - (1.) THE appellant Insurance Company insured the offending vehicle causing death to the victim who was a driver working in the Health Department of the State. He was 59 years of age and had one year service left to his credit. He was getting Rs. 15,469/ (Rupees fifteen thousand four hundred sixty nine only) as gross salary. The Tribunal upheld the maintainability of the claim application by holding that the offending vehicle was responsible for casualty and the insurance company was obliged to make payment of the compensation. The appeal and cross objection would relate to the quantum of compensation. The insurance company is unhappy as the Tribunal applied multiplier of 8. According to the appellant, since he had one year service left, the multiplier should be "1" instead of "8". The claimants are not happy as the Tribunal while computing the compensation took the net salary of the deceased, which involved deductions of general provident fund and group insurance apart from professional tax of Rs.150/ (Rupees one hundred fifty only).
(2.) WE have heard Mr. Mitra, learned Counsel for the Insurance company and Mr. Banik, learned Counsel for the claimants/respondents. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the Tribunal should have taken into account the unexpired period of service left to his credit a he would be getting appropriate retirement benefit and pension had he been alive. In fact, the claimants got the post death benefit, which should be taken into consideration while computing compensation. Mr. Banik, on the other hand, contends that the Tribunal was not right in taking the net salary after allowing the deductions of provident fund and group insurance. Opposing the appeal of the insurance company Mr. Banik cites the following decisions of the Apex Court: 1. III(2011) ACC 279 (SC) (Oriental Insurance Company vs. Vithabai and Ors.) 2. (2002)1CLJ 396 (Smt. Sabita Sarkar and Ors.vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.& Ors.) 3. 2011(1)T.A.C. 874(S.C.) (K.R.Madhusudan and Others.vs. Administrative Officer and Another) 4. 1(2011)ACC 659(SC) P.S. Somanathan and Ors. Vs. District Insurance Officer and anr. 5. 2009 ACJ 1121 (Mohan Singh vs. Kashi Bai and Others. 6. 2000 ACJ 1368 (Jyoti Kaul and Others vs. StAate of Madhya Pradesh and another) 7. 2003(2) T.A.C. 18 (S.C.) Abati Bezbaruah vs. Deputy Director General Geological Survey of India and another 8. 2001(1) T.A.C. 649 (S.C.) (Kaushnuma Begum and Others. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And others. to show that use of appropriate multiplier is well settled procedure in assessment of compensation, particularly in death cases. He particularly refers to the decision in the case of Smt. Sarala Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.). and the decision in the case of P.S. Somanath and Others supra wherein Apex Court upheld the use of multiplier even in case where death occurred to victims having definite income while serving their employers.
(3.) WE have considered the rival contentions. In our view, each and every case has to be judged on the factual matrix involved therein. There could not be any strait jacket formula which could be applied blind folded. In the instant case, the victim was a driver. Although he had merely one year service lying to his credit, had he been alive, in all probability, he would have taken the job of a driver on re appointment. Such aspect could not be brushed aside and applying the multiplier of unexpired period of service would be travesty of justice. In the present case, the Tribunal used the multiplier of "8". We do not have any scope to interfere on that score. From the pay slip, we find that he was paying Rs. 150/ (Rupees one hundred only) as professional tax. The Tribunal should have deducted the said amount while leaving other deductions of provident fund and group insurance.;