AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Ramakrishnan, J.—The claimants, who are the wife and children of deceased Narayana Shenoy, filed the application for compensation as O.P. (M.V). No. 2630/1996 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, for the death of their bread winner, who died in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 2nd respondent and owned by the 1st respondent Corporation. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 2nd respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,03,500/- under various heads as follows:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have come to this Court with the above appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents.
The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was working as Special Assistant in Canara Bank earning monthly salary of Rs. 11,004/- at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has only considered the take home salary after all deductions and also the pension payable, viz., Rs. 2479/- as the income of the deceased and deducting one-third for his personal expenses, taking 13 as the multiplier, awarded only Rs. 2,57,900/- as compensation under the head, loss of dependency. In fact, the income has to be computed as on the net income after deducting the income tax alone and not the take home salary. Further, 50% addition will have to be given for future prospects as well. These things were not done by the Tribunal. Further, the deceased died 10 days after incident and so the amount awarded under the head, pain and suffering is also less. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the amount awarded under the heads, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection is also less. So, the learned counsel claimed enhancement on all the heads.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the deceased is to retire at the age of 58 years and after retirement, he will be getting only less income. That aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal. So, the amount cannot be calculated on the basis of the net income, which the deceased would get as on the date of accident for the purpose of computing compensation under the head, loss of dependency. According to him, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper.
We have considered the rival contentions of both parties. It is seen from the documents produced, viz., salary certificate, that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 11,004/- and an amount of Rs. 3,200/- alone is being deducted for income tax. In the decision reported in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , it has been held that the net salary after deducting income tax alone will have to be taken as the multiplicand for fixing the quantum of compensation under the head, loss of dependency. Further, in the same, it has been held that 50% addition will have to be made for future prospects, if the deceased is above 50 years. This was confirmed in the decision reported in Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, by a larger bench. The learned counsel for the appellants also relied on the decision reported in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, , which is also a Three Judges bench decision, wherein even in the case where the age group between 50 and 60, and additional 50% as to be provided for future prospects. But in that decision, the decision reported in Reshma Kumari''s case (supra), was not referred to. So, applying the above principles, we feel that the amount taken as monthly income by the Tribunal as Rs. 2,479/- appears to be not correct. Till the age of retirement the deceased will be getting Rs. 7,804/- as net income after deducting income tax and thereafter there will be a reduction in the income. In Sarla Verma''s case (supra), the multiplier applicable to persons between the age group of 51 to 55 is 11. So, loss of dependency will have to be assessed on the basis of net income of Rs. 7,804/- deducting one-third for his personal expenses and applying four as the multiplier, the dependants will be entitled to get Rs. 2,49,728/- ( Rs. 7804 x 4 x 12 x 2/3) while retirement. We are fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4000/- per month after retirement and deducting one-third for his personal expenses and applying the reminder multiplier of 7, the dependants will be entitled to get Rs. 2,24,00/- ( Rs. 4000 x 7 x 12 x 2/3). So the appellants will be entitled to get Rs. 4,73,728/- as compensation under the head, loss of dependency, instead of Rs. 2,57,900/- awarded by the Tribunal. So the appellants will be entitled to Rs. 2,15,828/- as additional compensation under that head, which we award to the appellants. As regards the other amounts are concerned, considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 1996, the amount awarded under the other heads appears to be just and proper. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same. So the appellants are entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 2,15,828/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which the 1st respondent is liable to pay with 9% interest from the date of petition till payment. Three months'' time is granted to the 1st respondent to pay the amount.
The impugned award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.