- (1.) THE insurance company is in appeal against the award dated 19. 12. 2005 passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for brevity, 'the Tribunal' ). The appeal has been filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988. The Tribunal has recorded the findings after detailed analysis of the evidence that Mehar Chand, close relation of claimants-respondents had died in the accident which had occurred on 3. 11. 2004 at about 7 p. m. on account of rash and negligent driving of tractor-trolley No. HR 07-C 5482 by its driver Suresh Kumar, the respondent No. 7. The tractor-trolley is owned by Ram Swarup, respondent No. 8. Mehar Chand had died on the spot and the tractor-trolley had fled from the scene of occurrence. The number of tractor-trolley was not recorded in the F. I. R. but its driver suresh Kumar, respondent No. 7, is alleged to have made extra-judicial confession before one eyewitness Rameshwar Dass, who is stated to have followed the tractor-trolley up to 1 km. The findings of the tribunal on the aforementioned issue in the concluding two paras reads as under: " (15) The F. I. R. certainly does not have the number of the tractor or name of its driver. It could not have these particulars because the tractor driver did not stop at the place of accident and Mehar Singh could not notice these particulars because he was at a distance. The facts of this case are, however, that Mehar Singh asked the motorcyclists who came by that way to follow the tractor-trolley which had caused the accident. Rameshwar Dass is one of those motorcyclists and he had stated that they went in the direction of Jainpur and at a distance of about 1 or 1 km from the place of accident, they overtook the tractor and stopped it. Rameshwar Dass, PW 5, has stated that they found Suresh Kumar to be frightened. Before Rameshwar Dass, suresh Kumar is stated to have admitted to have caused the accident. This admission of Suresh Kumar coming in the statement of Rameshwar Dass, PW 5, is admissible in evidence. Nothing has come in cross-examination of Rameshwar Dass that this part of his statement is not believable. (16) All these circumstances, with no evidence from the other side, even from the side of insurance company, which had taken the plea of collusion, go to prove that the accident is an outcome of rash and negligent driving of tractor-trolley No. HR 07-C 5482 by Suresh kumar, respondent No. 7. There is no doubt about Mehar Chand dying in this accident. He died at the spot and, therefore, it can also be held that Mehar chand died in this road accident. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners. "
(2.) THE age of the deceased has been found to be 49 years and his gross salary has been proved on record as Rs. 12,083 which include contribution of Rs. 4,000 to g. P. F. After deducting the element of tax, salary of the deceased has been taken to be Rs. 12,000 per month. 1/4th cut has been imposed to leave 3/4th for claimants, who are six in number, namely, Bimla Devi, widow, Pawan Kumar his son, Sumar Lata, wife of Pawan Kumar, Nafe Singh, another son, sunita Rani, daughter and Nathu ram, the father. Accordingly, Rs. 9,000 has been found to be the dependency and a multiplier of 13 has been imposed. Further assessment has been made in para 21, which reads as under: " (21) For assessing the dependency of the claimants, I have to take their number into account. The deceased has left two sons and one daughter besides his widow and aged father. Suman Lata, petitioner No. 3 is wife of son of the deceased. She is not an heir of the deceased in the lifetime of Pawan Kumar, her husband. Still the deceased is survived by his widow, three children and aged father and in view of their number, expenses of the deceased on himself cannot be taken above 1/4th of his salary. Making a cut of 1/4th in the salary of the deceased, I find the dependency of the petitioner at Rs. 9,000 per month. Multiplying it with 12, the annual dependency of the petitioners comes to rs. 1,08,000. Multiplying this annual dependency with 13, the multiplier adopted as above, I find the petitioners to have lost Rs. 14,04,000 in the death of Mehar Chand. As per the aforesaid second Schedule, the petitioners are entitled to Rs. 9,500 in the name of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss to estate. Adding this amount to the aforesaid amount, I find petitioners to be entitled to Rs. 14,13,500 as compensation on the death of Mehar Chand. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 would fall to the share of Nathu Ram, petitioner No. 6, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 each would fall to the share of petitioner nos. 2, 4 and 5 and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,63,500 shall fall to the share of petitioner No. 1. "
(3.) IN the final award, Suman Lata, the claimant-respondent No. 3, the daughter-in-law of the deceased, has not been held entitled to any share. Tribunal has also awarded interest at the rate of 7. 5 per cent per annum by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya, 2005 ACJ 1441 (SC ).;