- (1.) This appeal seeks enhancement of compensation awarded to the appellant by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, vide Award dated 07.06.2004, on account of the death of Sh. Prem Shankar Shastri in a road accident found to have been caused on account of the negligent driving of respondent No. 1, who was driving an Ambassador car that hit the motor-cycle on which the deceased and appellant No. 1 were riding, on the date of accident. The appellants are the widow and 2 minor sons of the deceased. The basic facts as taken from the award of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, are detailed hereinafter:- No appeal having been filed by the respondents against the Award, they have obviously accepted the finding therein and, as such, are now only opposed to the enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
(2.) Mr. Mahavir Singh Sandhu, learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset first submits that the deceased was only 38 years of age and was employed as a Sanskrit Teacher in a Government School, and his salary was proved to be Rs. 11,940/- in the month preceding his death and though the Tribunal has obviously accepted that figure while calculating compensation to be awarded, it has erred on two vital issues; viz., (i) not taking into account the prospects of income to be earned in the future had the deceased not died on account of the accident; (ii) by deducting the family pension being received by appellant No. 1 amounting to Rs. 6,080/- per month. He further argued that a multiplier of at least 18 should have been applied while calculating the loss of income to the appellant, considering that the deceased was only 38 years of age and in a steady Government Job. He has further argued that as per law now settled, a sum of Rs. 1 lac should have been awarded to appellant No. 1 for loss of consortium and Rs. 1 lac each should have been awarded to appellants No. 2 and 3 for loss of love and affection of their father. In this regard he cited the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 6 SCC 121; Rajesh and other v. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 9 SCC 54; Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishore Dan and others, 2013 7 SCC 476; and Lal Dei & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport, 2007 8 SCC 319. Further, he submitted that Rs. 25,000/- should have been awarded on account of funeral expenses and a sum of at least Rs. 15,000/- should have been awarded on account of transportation of the deceased, first in an injured condition from the site of the accident to the hospital and then on account of transportation of his body from hospital to his home. He also argued that interest @ 12% should have been granted by the Tribunal on the amount of compensation awarded, from the date of institution of the claim-petition till the date of realization of such compensation, whereas the Tribunal awarded only 9% annual interest. In all, he submitted, that a total compensation of at least Rs. 50,00,000/- plus interest @ 12% should have been awarded to the appellant, as against the Rs. 7,59,144/- awarded.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company, however, submitted that the Tribunal had awarded more than adequate compensation and nothing further, whatsoever, needs to be enhanced under any head whatsoever. He, however, could not deny the position of law, as settled in the judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellants, even while insisting that the amount which would be arrived at by taking future prospects of income and under other heads in to account, would be highly excessive.;