Smt. Kamlesh Devi and Others vs Shri Kitab Singh and Others

Indermeet Kaur, J.—The Award impugned is the Award dated 5.4.2008 vide which compensation in the sum of Rs. 8,76,184/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum had been granted in favour of the claimants.

Prakash Chand aged 55 years had suffered death in a road accident which had taken place on 27.8.2005. The deceased was riding his bicycle; a truck coming from Wazirabad hit him in a rash and negligent manner; deceased died at the spot.

The present petition has been filed by the claimants seeking an enhancement of compensation. The controversy is narrow. It has been urged that the victim was 55 years of age and he having six dependants, deduction should have been made of 1/4th and not of 1/3rd. The salary certificate of the deceased had been proved as Ex.PW-2/A. Deceased was working as a lascer in the Air Force Station. After giving him the benefit of future prospects his loss of income had been computed to Rs. 13065/-; multiplier of 11 was applied; split multiplier was applied keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner had to retire at the age of 60; under the first category the actual salary i.e. between the age of 55 to 60 had been taken into account and in the second category since at the age of 60 years the deceased would have retired; his pension was considered; under this circumstance the split multiplier had been applied. This was a reasoned reasoning and calls for no interference. In the judgment of Sri. K.R. Madhusudhan and Others Vs. The Administrative Officer and Another, , the split multiplier introduced by the High Court had been set aside by the Apex Court as the High Court had applied the method of the split multiplier without disclosing any reason; the Tribunal (as noted supra) had given a reasoned finding for adopting the split multiplier. This finding does not call for any interference.

Record shows that the deceased had four children who were already married and three minor dependants; his widow was getting a family pension. The deduction of 1/3rd made on this count in view of the judgment of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 67 SCC 121 also suffers from no infirmity; the impugned Award calls for no interference. Dismissed.