Sayeda and Others vs P. Murgan and Others

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—1. Claimants in MVC No. 918/2007 aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 25.09.2009 in MVC Nos. 763, 918 and 961 of 2007 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. VI, Bijapur (for short ''MACT) in so far as it relates to MVC No. 918/2007 have filed this appeal for higher compensation.

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the deceased aged 50 years as on 30.05.2007 was a driver in the employment of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation paid Rs. 11,965/- as monthly wage as indicated in the wage slip Ex. P-26 dated 02.06.2007 hence the MACT was not justified in deducting Rs. 5,088/- from the said wage since the deductions were in respect of Provident Fund, ESI, Festival Advance, Education fund, PF advance, LIC premium and insurance premium which were not admissible deductions for the purpose of determining the loss of dependency. The award of Rs. 9,32,900/- towards loss of dependency is submitted is incorrect.

Per contra, Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company seeks to sustain the judgment and award impugned as being well merited, fully justified and not calling for interference.

There is no dispute that Ex. P-26 pay slip for the month of June 2007 in the name of the deceased discloses payment of Rs. 6,375.32/- towards basic pay, Rs. 5,037/- towards dearness allowance, Rs. 273/- towards HRA, Rs. 20/- towards washing allowance and Rs. 260/- towards night halt allowance, while the deductions effected were Rs. 828/- towards provident fund; Rs. 541/- towards FPS; Rs. 20/- towards DRB fund; Rs. 5/- towards education fund; Rs. 2,400/- towards festival advance; Rs. 150/- towards PF advance; Rs. 1098/- towards LIC premium; and Rs. 46/- towards insurance company.

If regard is had to the deductions, it is needless to state that they were not admissible deductions for the purpose of determining monthly loss of dependency and therefore the MACT fell in error.

We find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. Reckoning Rs. 11,685.32/- (excluding Rs. 20/- washing allowance and Rs. 260/- night halt allowance) and applying multiplier 13 for age 50 of the deceased as on the date of accident and death, regard being had to the fact that deceased would have attained the age of superannuation at 58 years, hence, had 8 years of service therefore the need to apply split multiplier of 8 and 5, while being entitled to application of 30% of the monthly income towards future prospects (Rs. 11,685.32/- + Rs. 3,505.00/- = Rs. 15,190.32/-) and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly loss of dependency is Rs. 10,126.50/-. The annual loss of income when multiplied by multiplier 8 the loss of dependency upto the date of superannuation is Rs. 9,72,144/-. Reckoning 50% of the monthly income as pensionary benefits and applying the balance of multiplier ''5'', the loss of dependency, post superannuation is Rs. 3,03,795/-. In all the appellants are entitled to Rs. 12,75,939/- towards loss of dependency.

In Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others at paragraph 17 the larger bench of the Supreme Court having re-visited the award of compensation under conventional heads observed that courts may award in the least Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses.

Applying the aforesaid observations to the facts of this case, the first appellant-widow is entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses.

In all appellants are entitled to Rs. 14,00,939/- as against Rs. 9,54,900/- awarded by the MACT.

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award impugned is modified entitling the appellants to Rs. 14,00,939/- and in all other respects remains unaltered.