AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 14,72,000/- awarded for the death of S. Venkatesan who died in an accident which occurred on 28.04.1993. The deceased was aged about 51 years and four months on the date of the accident. He was working in Australian High Commission and was getting a gross salary of Rs. 14,233/- per month as per the certificate. On adding future prospects, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) took the deceased salary to be Rs. 16,500/-, deducted Rs. 5500/- towards his personal and living expenses and on adopting a multiplier of ''11'' the loss of dependency was worked out as Rs. 14,52,000/-.
It is urged by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Claims Tribunal erred in not taking into consideration the perquisites which the deceased was getting while working in Australian High Commission.
It is urged that the rate of interest awarded by the Claims Tribunal i.e. 6% per annum was also very low.
On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the Respondent No.3 Insurance Company that the Claims Tribunal erred in granting future prospects. In fact, at the deceased''s age who was more than 51 years, he was not entitled to any future prospects on the basis of ratio in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another,
In Sarla Verma (supra) it was held that unless there are any exceptional circumstances no future prospects should be granted where the deceased is more than 50 years.
No extraordinary circumstance was brought on record during inquiry before the Claims Tribunal. At the same time, the Claims Tribunal erred in taking the deceased''s take home salary as Rs. 12,000/- per month, when the certificate placed on record showed that he was getting a gross salary of Rs. 14,233/-. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary deduction towards the income tax only was required to be made.
The annual salary of the deceased comes to Rs. 1,70,796/- (14,233/- x 12).
There is a liability of about Rs. 40,000/- towards the income tax for the assessment year 1994-95 on this amount. On taking this sum, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 14,38,756/- (1,30,796/- x 11) as against Rs. 14,52,000/- adopted by the Claims Tribunal.
The Claims Tribunal added a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- on account of loss of love and affection.
Considering that the accident took place in the year 1993, this sum cannot be said to be unreasonable. Still there is excess of about Rs. 13,000/- which shall be treated towards the loss to estate.
Thus, the overall compensation of Rs. 14,72,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be low. The same in my view is just and proper.
So far as the rate of interest awarded @ 6% per annum is concerned, the interest rates were high in the 1990s. Albeit, it came down since the year 2000 and started climbing up since the year 2008.
In the circumstances, I would not interfere with the grant of interest @ 6% per annum.
The Appeal is devoid of any merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.