- (1.) SMT . Sarita Devi, the appellant, has challenged the award dated 14.9.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, whereby the learned Tribunal had granted 50% of the total compensation of Rs.12,40,000/ - to her i.e. Rs.6,20,000/ -, and 50% of the said compensation to her in -laws, namely respondent Nos.4 and 5 before this Court.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case, as narrated in the claim petition, are that on 16.5.2006 around 10:30AM Baljeet Singh, husband of claimant -appellant, along with other relatives, was travelling in a Scorpio car bearing registration No.RJ18 -UA -0087. Since Yogesh Kumar, the driver -respondent No.1, was driving the car rashly and negligently, it turned turtle near Kummas Jagir bus -stand on Sikar -Salasar road. Consequently, Baljeet Singh and his nephew, Deepak, died on the spot. Separate claim petitions were filed by the parents of Baljeet Singh and his wife, the appellant herein, before the learned Tribunal. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned through a common award. Hence this appeal for enhancement. Mr. Sandeep Mathur, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, the appellant's husband Shri Baljeet Singh, was serving in the Indian Army and was earning Rs.7,736/ -, as is clear from his salary certificate Exh -12. While calculating the loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal has increased his salary from Rs.7,736/ - to Rs.9,000/ - while includes the prospect of future increase in salary his salary. However, relying on the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [(2009) 6 SCC 121], the learned counsel has contended that in fact the future prospect of increase in salary should have been by 50%. Therefore, while calculating the loss of dependency, the Tribunal has mis -applied the guidelines established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Secondly, that according to the case of Sarla Verma (supra), a multiplier of 18 should have been applied, whereas the learned Tribunal has applied a multiplier of 17. Hence the entire loss of dependency needs to be recalculated keeping in mind the guidelines established in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Thirdly, according to the learned counsel, the appellant is not aggrieved by the proportionment of 50% given to her and 50% given to her in -laws. However, as the in -laws have not filed an appeal before this Court, therefore any enhancement made by this Court should be given to her solely and should not be given to her in -laws.
(3.) ON the other hand Mr. M.S. Kachhawa the learned counsel for Insurance Company, has vehemently contended that the appellant has not only remarried, but during the course of the proceedings she has been granted compassionate appointment. Therefore the question of adding the future prospect of increase in income does not arise.;