- (1.) Claimants have preferred this appeal dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.14,44,500/- in a death claim, awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide its award dated 20.03.2004 in MAC Case No.83/2004.
(2.) One Ramdhan Jat, husband of appellant no.1 and father of appellants no.2 and 3 and son of appellants no.4 and 5, died on 24.07.1999 in a road accident. He was driving Maruti Van No.RJ-01-E-0221 on national highway no.8. When he reached near village Palu Kalan, truck No.HR-38-8325 coming from opposite direction hit the maruti van, as a result of which he died on the spot. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.13,94,500/- for loss of dependency with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The Tribunal in the present case has doubled the salary applying the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 2 SCC 176 but in doing so, it has not taken into account the gross salary of the deceased which was Rs.10,971/- but rather considered only Rs.9,636/- i.e. the basic pay and dearness allowance and doubled the same to Rs.19,272/- and after deducting 1/3rd for self expenses of the deceased, the monthly loss of dependency was determined at Rs.12,848/-. The Tribunal has also deducted Rs.3,848/-, which the widow would be receiving as family pension. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15 and calculated the compensation at Rs.15,90,000/-. A sum of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded on non-pecuniary heads and, thus, a total compensation of Rs.16,05,000/- has been awarded. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium to widow, loss of love and affection to the children and loss of future care in old age to parents.
(3.) Shri Pratap Singh Sirohi, learned counsel for appellants, has argued that learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd for self-expenses of the deceased whereas, as per ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 6 SCC 121, only 1/4th ought to have been deducted for self-expenses of the deceased because in present case there were/are five dependents. Learned counsel argued that deceased was 42 years of age at the time of accident and, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 15. As per last pay certificate of the deceased, his monthly salary was Rs.10,971/- and that his salary would have been by now more than Rs.50,000/-. Learned counsel in support of his argument, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 2 SCC 176, and argued that as per that judgment, the salary should be double keeping in view the future prospects and, on that basis, monthly income of the deceased should have been taken as Rs.21942/- and, after deducting 1/4th (Rs.5485/-) for his own expenses. Annual contribution to the family should be accepted at Rs.1,97,484/- (16457x12) and after applying the multiplier of 15, total payable compensation must be held to be Rs.29,62,260/-. Learned Tribunal was wholly unjustified in taking the salary on the basis of basic pay plus dearness allowance. Learned Tribunal should have added other allowances also to the salary while calculating the compensation. Accepting the annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,08,000/- only and calculating the compensation on that basis was wholly unjustified. It was argued that payment of Rs.10,000/- in all for loss of consortium to widow, and love and affection to children and parents, is towards lower side. The Tribunal was also not justified in deducting the amount of Rs.1,60,500/- out of the compensation of Rs.16,05,000/- for income-tax at the rate of 10%. The Tribunal was also not justified in deducting the amount of Rs.3848/- from the amount of assessed contribution of the deceased to the family, which the widow would be receiving as family pension. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the house rent allowance is also part of the salary and it should be included in the salary for the purpose of computation of the compensation. In support of this argument, learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma and Others Vs. Bachitar Singh and Others,2011 MACD(SC) 141.;