K.KANNAN,J. - (1.) THE appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation at the instance of the representative of the deceased who was a police constable aged 26 years. The claimants were widow and her minor children. The salary proved on record was Rs. 1,568.00 . The Tribunal took the salary to be Rs. 1400.00 made a deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses and adopted a multiplier of 16. The case is of the year 1991 and there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. I would not dismiss the case for non-prosecution at this length of time nor do I adjourn the case waiting the arrival of the counsel. I proceed therefore to examine the case on merits with the assistance of the counsel for the owner.
(2.) IN a case where the deceased was in State government service, the Tribunal ought to have also provided for prospect of increase in salary. I would take that to be 50% of the income proved and take the average income to be Rs. 2,352.00. I will make a deduction of 1/3rd and take personal expenses and take the contribution to the family at Rs. 1,568.00 per month. I will adopt a multiplier of 17 as suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs.Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SC 121 and find the loss of dependency at Rs. 3,19,872.00 which I will round off to Rs. 3,20,000.00. I will provide Rs. 5,000.00 towards loss of consortium to the wife and Rs. 2500.00 for love and affection for the child. I will also add Rs. 5,000.00 towards loss of estate and Rs. 2,500.00for funeral expenses and find the total amount of compensation payable at Rs. 3,35,000.00. The Tribunal, while arriving at the compensation, had also made deduction for pension earned by the widow. Pension is a deferred wage and it is not a benefit arising due to death and therefore it could not be deducted. The amount as determined above in excess of what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The award shall be distributed equally between the claimants. There is a cross appeal by the owner, as regards the direction contained in the award that the Insurance Company would be liable for only Rs. 1,50,000.00 as per terms of the policy for the claim arising from a third party. Learned counsel points out that in terms of Section 147 (2), the limited liability as prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 shall continue to be effective only for a period of four months after the commencement of the Act or till the date of expiry of the policy which ever was earlier. The Act came into force on 22.5.1989 and the restriction of the liability contained in the policy would be therefore effective only till 22.9.1989. The accident had taken place on 16.12.1989 and therefore there is a compulsory insurance cover for unlimited liability for a claim from the death of a third party to the contract. This aspect has also been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Behari Lal reported in 2000 (7) SCC 137 that held that the liability of the Insurance Company would be governed by Section 147 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The liability for answering the owner claimant shall be therefore only on the Insurance Company and the restriction of liability as provided by the Tribunal is consequently set aside. The cross appeal is also allowed.;