AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aravind Kumar, J.—Heard Sri. MaheshKiran Shetty, learned counsel appearing for appellants and Sri. O. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. Notice to respondents 1 and 2 has been dispensed with by order dated 11.08.2014. Since accident is of the year 2005, by consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, appeal is taken up for final disposal.
The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in construing the income of the deceased @ Rs. 9,510/- per month despite he being on a permanent salary working as Assistant Teacher in a Government Primary School as evidenced from the salary certificate Exhibit P-6 and his salary being Rs. 12,121/- per month
Sri. Maheshkiran Shetty, learned counsel appearing for appellants would submit that compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and prays for same being recomputed under all heads. Per contra, Sri. O. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3-insurer would support the Judgment and award passed by tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the salary certificate Exhibit P-6 dated 18.01.2005, certified copy of which is made available by Sri. Maheshkiran Shetty, learned counsel appearing for appellants during the course of arguments would indicate that deceased was earning Basic salary of Rs. 7,200/- and also drawing Dearness Allowance of Rs. 4,608/-, HRA Rs. 288/-, Medical allowance Rs. 25/-, in all his Gross salary of Rs. 12,121/- per month. Deduction as reflected in Exhibit P-6 would indicate that a sum of Rs. 2,614/- was being deducted under various heads. The only head under which deduction was required to be considered by the tribunal from the income of deceased related to exclusion of professional tax. Tribunal committed a serious error in deducting other amounts from the salary of deceased which was towards group insurance, life insurance and other deductions. Thus tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation by construing the income of the deceased at Rs. 9,510/-. As such compensation awarded by the tribunal towards loss of dependency'' being erroneous requires to be redetermined or recomputed by taking into consideration Exhibit P-6 which indicates the last drawn salary of the deceased was Rs. 12,121/- per month and after deducting professional tax which was to the tune of Rs. 150/- per month net salary which dependants have lost is Rs. 11,971/- per month.
It is not in dispute that as per post mortem report Exhibit P-3 and inquest report Exhibit P-4 deceased was aged about 52 years as on the date of accident and six persons were dependent on his income. As per dicta laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, when the dependents are six in number deduction to be made towards living expenses is 1/4th and not 1/3rd as computed by Tribunal. Thus, a sum of Rs. 2,992/- is required to be deducted towards living expenses from out of total income of deceased and when so deducted net loss of income to the dependents would be Rs. 8,979/-.
Perusal of the award in question would indicate that tribunal taking into consideration that deceased was working as a Government Teacher in a primary school has rightly adopted split multiplier method by relying upon the decision of this court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. K.S. Lakshmi Kumar and Others, and said finding cannot be found fault with. In view of the discussion made herein above claimants-appellants would be entitled to compensation for six years by taking into consideration full salary and for the remaining period of six years it would be 50% since undisputedly claimants would be receiving pension and to that extent loss of dependency would be set off to the claimants. Thus, claimants would be entitled to following compensation:
Said compensation is payable with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment excluding the period of delay and subject to following:
Present appeal came to be dismissed for default by order dated 20.08.2008. After a period of six years i.e., vide order dated 10.04.2014 appeal came to be restored by allowing I.A. 1/2012 and I.A. 2/2012. Since delay in getting the appeal restored is attributable to appellants-claimants, insurer cannot be directed to pay interest for the delay period. Said period has to be excluded for purpose of calculation of interest.
In the result following order is passed:
ORDER
Appeal is hereby allowed in part.
Judgment and award dated 21.04.2007 passed in MVC 261/2005 by Civil Judge (Senior Division), MACT Kundapura is hereby modified and in substitution to compensation awarded by tribunal a total compensation of Rs. 10,19,732/- is hereby awarded with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date of payment or deposit excluding the period from 20.08.2008 to 10.04.2014.
Insurer is directed to deposit compensation amount before jurisdictional tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Compensation awarded is ordered to be distributed between claimants 1 to 6, in the ratio 35:10:10:15:15:15.
50% of compensation awarded with proportionate interest shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit for a period of three years in the name of claimants. Balance 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be paid to respective claimants by jurisdictional tribunal on proper identification.
No costs.