AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashim Kumar Banerjee & Shukla Kabir (Sinha), JJ.—The Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,89,832/- as total compensation inclusive of the statutory deposit Rs. 25,000/- paid u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. While calculating the compensation, the Tribunal took the gross salary without deducting the professional tax that gave rise to the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. The claimants are also unhappy, as according to them, the Tribunal did not follow the 2nd Schedule while using the multiplier that resulted in the other appeal. We have heard both the appeals. We have heard Mr. Ashimesh Goswami, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/Insurance Company and Mr. Krishanu Banik, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants.
We have examined the award. We are of the view that the Insurance Company''s appeal must succeed, as the Tribunal erred in not deducting professional tax while assessing the net salary. From the salary slip we find that the deceased victim was getting Rs. 8,747/- as gross salary. He was also paying Rs. 90/- as professional tax that would be deducted hence, net salary for the purpose of calculation of compensation should be Rs. 8,657/- instead of Rs. 8,747/-, that takes care of the appeal by the Insurance Company.
While deciding the claimants'' appeal, we are of the view that the decision in the case of K.R. Madhusudan & Ors. v. Administrative Officer & Anr., reported in AIR 2011 S.C. (Civil) 639, was delivered in an exceptional circumstance as observed by the Apex Court in paragraph 10 of the said decision. The Apex Court deviated from the ratio decided in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.). We do not find any exceptional circumstance prevalent in the instant case. We, thus, follow the decision in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others (supra). Applying the ratio decided therein, we are of the view that the Tribunal did not commit any illegality in applying the multiplier of 7, being the unexpired period of service, which the deceased left to his credit. We are, however, of the view that the Tribunal should have considered the future prospect.
In our view, had the victim been alive, he would have got regular increments for seven years. Even if he did not get any increment, automatic enhancement of dearness allowance, considering the price index, would change the scenario. The family was also deprived of having appropriate pension, which is calculated on the last drawn salary. One can easily infer that the last drawn salary, which he could get on the date of superannuation could not be same and the later one would obviously be on the higher side.
Taking a sum total, of the prejudice, which the family might be suffering and applying the rule of thumb, we feel that in addition of the compensation, which the Tribunal assessed save and except recalculation to be made in view of change in the net salary, interest of justice would sub-serve if we direct further compensation of Rs. 60,000/- to be added to the compensation and paid to the claimants. This would take care of the decision in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others (supra) as well as K.R. Madhusudan & Ors. (supra). The awarded sum would also include Rs. 9,500/- as loss of estate, loss of consortium and loss of funeral expenses.
The claimants appeal, thus, succeeds on that score. The calculation as per the modified award in terms of the forgoing judgment is as follows:
The award would carry interest at the rate of 7% p.a. on and from the date of filing of claim petition until payment is made. Both the appeals are disposed off alongwith the application.
The Insurance Company is directed to pay the interest as well as the awarded sum in the same proportion fixed by the Tribunal to the respective claimants through account payee cheques to be sent at the recorded address by registered post with acknowledgement due. Such payment must reach the claimants within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The Insurance Company would be entitled to the credit of any sum paid to or received by the claimants in the meantime. The Insurance Company would also be entitled to withdraw the sum now kept in deposit with the Registrar General of this Court alongwith interest if any accrued in the meantime after the payment is made to the claimant in terms of the forgoing order. There would be no order as to costs. The Registry is directed to send down the records at once, if received by this time. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.