Pratibha and others vs Shishpal Tomar and others

This appeal is against the award dated 15.05.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (for short, Rs.the Tribunal') for

enhancement of compensation.

The bare facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that on 29.08.2007. Randhir Singh SOWAR in Army along with his wife was

coming back from Hisar to Saatrod Kalan on a motor cycle. At about 3.30 PM, near railway over bridge by-pass Hisar, a Military truck bearing

registration No. 03D-152771E (for short, Rs.the offending vehicle') struck the motor cycle. As a result of impact, Randhir Singh suffered grievous

injuries.

He was taken to Military Hospital Cantt Hisar, where he succumbed to injuries. FIR No. 697 dated 30.08.2007 was registered at Police Station Sadar

Hisar.

The widow, two minor sons and parents of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, Rs.the

Act').

The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. As per the Last Pay Drawn Certificate

Ex.P2, salary of the deceased was Rs. 10,625/- per month. The Tribunal, after deducting the family pension amount of Rs. 4,200/- per month,

awarded the compensation. Though the deceased was 29 years of age, yet the multiplier of 18 was applied. One-third deduction was made for self

expenses. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 6,57,500/- as compensation. The amount awarded included Rs. 9,500/- awarded under the conventional

heads.

The present appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation.

Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal erred in deducting the family pension. No future prospects have been added. The

grievance of the appellants is that after the death of Randhir Singh, sixth pay commission was implemented with effect from 01.01.2006, hence, the

revised salary should be considered for calculating the compensation. Learned counsel argued that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads

are on the lower side.

The contesting respondent is basically the Union of India through Defence Ministry, as the offending vehicle was an Army vehicle.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 â€" Union of India contends that the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 18 because the deceased was

29 years of age. He showed his inability, in absence of instructions, to provide the exact revised salary and entitlement of the deceased in view of

implementation of the sixth pay commission.

The contention raised that the amount of family pension cannot be deducted deserves acceptance. The Supreme Court in case of Lal Dei and

others Vs. Himachal Road Transport, 2007 (8) SCC 319, relying upon its earlier decision in Mrs. Helen C. Rebello Vs. Maharashtra State Road

Transport Corpn., AIR 1998 SC 3191, held that the amount of family pension cannot be deducted while calculating compensation to be awarded to the

claimants under the Act.

The appellants would be entitled to compensation being calculated as per the revised salary to which the deceased was entitled to in view of

implementation of the sixth pay commission. He was an Army personal having a permanent job. In such circumstances, his revised pay has to be

considered for awarding compensation. Reliance in this regard is placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Ramrao Lala Borse and another Vs.

New India Assurance Company Ltd. and another, 2018 (1) JT 423.

In view of decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 (SC) 5157, as the

deceased was below 40 years of age, 50% future prospects are to be added for calculating compensation. The appellants would be entitled to a sum

of Rs. 70,000/- under the conventional heads, i.e. Rs. 15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium.

Having regard to decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (6) SCC

121, keeping in view the number of dependents survived by the deceased being more than four, one-fourth deduction is to be made for self expenses.

The deceased was 29 years of age, multiplier of 17 is to be applied.

Since today, the figure of revised salary of the deceased is not available, the respondents would re-calculate the compensation considering the

revised salary of the deceased in view of implementation of sixth pay commission, minus income tax payable. 50% future prospects would be added.

One-fourth deduction for self expenses would be made and the multiplier of 17 would be applied. Further, a sum of Rs. 70,000/-, i.e. Rs. 15,000/- each

for loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium, shall also be paid under the conventional heads.

The appellants would be entitled to the enhanced amount calculated along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the

claim petition till realisation of the amount.

The calculated enhanced amount shall be paid to the claimants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this

order by the respondents. It would be desirable that the enhanced compensation is deposited by the respondents in the bank account, in which the

family pension is being deposited or in the bank account, the details of which are furnished by the appellants.

The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.