YAMIN, J. - (1.) THESE three Misc. appeals have been preferred by Union of India on a common ground against the award of learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner dated 17. 3. 1999. Facts may be narrated in short as follows:-
(2.) TRUCK No. RJM 1667 of BSF belongs to Union of India. Its driver Bhagirath Singh was an employee of the Union of India. He was the driver of the said truck on 17. 5. 1993. It started around 4. 30 from O. R. D. loaded with fire wood and was returning to Deepwala. In this truck four persons were on board. When it reached near Muslim Talai (about one Kilometer from Khajuwala), it over turned and the four persons on board died. Smt. Subha Manual wife of J. Manual (who was working on the post of Nayak in the BSF) filed claim petition on her behalf as well as on behalf of her minor children. Similarly, Smt. Rekha Devi wife of Narvesh Kumar Yadav and Babi daughter of Narvesh Kumar Yadav filed claim petition. Deceased Narvesh Kumar Yadav was also an employee of BSF. Smt Meera Devi wife of Bharat Yadav deceased also filed a claim petition. Deceased Bharat Yadav was an emplo-yee in 72 Battalion of BSF at Bikaner. The claim petitions were contested by Union of India. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 5,52,344/-to the legal representatives of J. Manual. To the claimants of Narvesh Kumar Yadav a claim of Rs. 4,49,484/-was awarded and to the claimants of Bharat Yadav a claim of Rs. 4,50,604/-was awarded. Hence these appeals. The sole controversy in these appeals between the parties is whether the amount of award is excessive on the ground that pensionary benefits etc. given to the claimants and the question of uncertainty of life were not considered by the Tribunal while awarding the compensation as deceased persons who were employees of BSF were in the Govt. job and their families are entitled to various benefits to be given under the rules. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length and gone through the various rulings which they have cited. Learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that benefits are being given to the families of the deceased persons which the learned Tribunal should have taken into consideration and a lump sum amount should have been deducted from the total. He relied on Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. vs. Rajrani Surendrakumar Sharma and others (1); Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Ramanand Devrao Hattangadi and others (2); Hardev Kaur and others vs. Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. and others (3); U. P. State Road Trans; Corpn and another vs. Chandrawati and others (4); and Jhulan Rani Saha vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others He submitted that in these citations certain percentage was deducted keeping due to lump sum payment; uncertainty of life and other benefits to be given to the families by the employer. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in case No. 72/97 i. e. the claim petition of Smt. Meera, such a submission was made by the Union of India and was considered by learned Tribunal in para No. 22 of its judgment but the learned Tribunal was of the view that the financial benefits given after the death of deceased is not to be computed while awarding compensation. He submitted that of course the learned Tribunal did keep in mind the fact while adopting multiplier. He submitted that this applies to all the claims and the learned Tribunal was right in not considering these benefits separately. According to him pensionary benefits, benefits of gratuity and other benefits according to the rules should not be considered while granting compensation. Learned Counsel cited General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas and others (6) (a judgment of Supreme Court), and submitted that the multiplier method is the appropriate method for calculating just compensation. In this citation decisions adopting a different method of calculating compensation were disappro-ved. In this judgment deduction of percentage towards uncertainties of future life was held to be unscientific. Reliance has also been placed on N. Sivammal and others vs. Managing Director Pandian Roadways Corporation and another (7), in which the Supreme Court observed that the widow of deceased was entitled to pension for a period of seven years whereafter the amount will taper down. The High Court had evaluated the monetary benefit of pension and reduced the amount of compensation by Rs. 10,000/ -. Apex Court observed that we are unable to appreciate this reduction. We find no justification for it. In this citation reduction of amount keeping the pensionary benefits in view was disapproved by the Apex Court. A similar question arose in Chhagan Kanwar and others vs. Pep Singh and others (8), before Rajasthan High Court itself and it was held that deduction on account of pension and employment given to the eldest son of the deceased was not admissible. In Bullan and another vs. Jasmer Kaur and others (9), Delhi High Court held that deduction on account of family pension, provident fund and gratuity is not admissible. In a latest case of Delhi High Court reported in Mishri Devi and others vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others (10), it was held that deduction on account of lump sum payment, provident fund, pension or towards income tax was not admissible. In a Division Bench Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in M. P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sushilabai and others (11), the Tribunal made deductions on account of share of profit received after death, lump sum payment, uncertainties of life and benefit of wife as a partner of the firm. This was disallowed and the Tribunal's award was enhanced.
(3.) RELIANCE has been placed on Hardeo Kaur and others vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another (12), in which the Apex Court disallowed deduction of 1/3 for lump sum payment. The deceased was aged 36 years and a Major in Army and assessed the dependency at Rs. 1400/-per month and adopted multiplier of 24. In Urmilla Pandey and others vs. Khalil Ahmad and others (13), deductions on account of lump sum payment to the tune of 33% was held to be unjustified and it was held that even in 1970 the life expectancy could not be less than 65 years. The life expectancy since then has definitely increased and was more when the accident took place. In view of Susamma Thomas's case (supra) the learned Tribunal was right in using the multiplier method. The amounts of award granted in the three cases are not excessive, unreasonable and do not suffer from any illegality. Consequently, I do not find any force in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs. .;