Smt. Ratna Misra and Others vs New India Assurance Co. and Others

Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J.—This appeal u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) has been preferred by claimants for enhancement of awarded compensation of Rs. 16,04,723 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 228 of 2008 decided by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Hardoi (for short Tribunal) on 30.9.2009. In this case the only dispute which has been raised from the side of the claimants is of application of multiplier and of rate of interest granted by the Tribunal. Hence, the facts in detail need not to be gone into.

The fact in brief for deciding the controversy are that the deceased at the time of accident was working as Branch Manager in Awadh Gramin Bank, Mansoornagar. Hardoi drawing a gross salary of Rs. 31,749 per month. The basic salary of the deceased was Rs. 22,280 per month as per certificate of salary proved before Tribunal. Apart from basic salary the deceased was getting Rs. 8,022 as D.A. and Rs. 1,420 towards house rent allowance. The Tribunal after deducting income tax of Rs. 39,154, payable by the petitioner from the gross salary, determined the annual income of Rs. 3,41,834. After deducting 1/3rd towards the expenses of the deceased determined the dependency of the claimants of Rs. 2,27,889 per year.

For deciding the multiplier the Tribunal taken into consideration the date of retirement of the deceased, i.e., 14.9.2015. On the basis of date of birth of the deceased as 15.9.1955 the Tribunal found that only 7 years 2 months and 23 days were remained of service tenure of the deceased on the date of accident, i.e. 8.7.2008. It was further observed that there was no provision for pension or family pension according to service rules. Consequently, considering all these "facts applied the multiplier of 7 and determined the compensation of Rs. 15,95,223. After adding a sum of Rs. 9,500 towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and consortium determined the total compensation of Rs. 16.04.723.

In this case wife and two young son are dependent of the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased was in between 52 to 53 years of age on the date of accident, i.e., 8.7.2008.

The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submitted that in case of death of deceased in between 52 to 55 years the multiplier should be applied of 11 and not of 7. It was further submitted that while determining the compensation the Tribunal has not considered the future prospect of the deceased and did not add even a single penny in the income of the deceased, though he was a permanent employee of bank.

It was further submitted that only 6% simple interest has been awarded which ought to have been 10% considering the prevailing rate of interest payable by the banks on fixed deposit.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-insurance company supported the award and submitted that in this case the Job of the petitioner was not pensionable as held by the Tribunal. Therefore, considering the length of service the application of multiplier of 7 is justified and the amount determined by the Tribunal as compensation is Just and fair. It was further submitted that the deceased was having only 7 years service remaining and he was working as Branch Manager, upto the maximum promotion In his cadre, therefore, the future prospect could not be considered and thus rightly not considered by the Tribunal. It was further submitted that the rate of interest is discretion of the Tribunal and the discretion exercised by the Tribunal unless proved to be perverse or shown to be exercise with material illegality the same could not be interfered by the appellate court.

We have considered the submission of both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that Job of deceased was not pensionable and after retirement he must have in total loss of his 100% income but Inspite of that this fact cannot be overlooked that if he would have been alive his income bound to be increased due to Increase in dearness allowance (in short ''D.A.'') is ranging between 6 to 7% after every 6 months. If we take into account the increment in D.A. The enhancement towards income should be at least 12 to 14% every year. The petitioners failed to establish that the deceased was entitled to get any increment in the basic pay, therefore, considering the circumstances available in this case we are of the firm view that enhancement in the determined annual income by the Tribunal to the extent of 15% would be just and should be made.

The annual income determined after deduction of Income tax arrived at Rs. 3,41,834 the same is rounded to Rs. 3,42,000. If we add 15% of it the same comes equal to Rs. 51,300. The annual income after adding 15% would come to Rs. 3,93,300. After deducting 1/3rd of it the figure comes to Rs. 2,62,200 and after multiplied it with 7, this figure comes to Rs. 18,35,400. After adding the amount of Rs. 9,500 towards consortium funeral expenses and loss of estate this figure comes to Rs. 18,44,900.

In view of the above, we think that there should be enhancement in the compensation from Rs. 16,04,723 to Rs. 18,44,900.

So far as the rate of Interest awarded by Tribunal, is concerned, we do not find any good reason to interfere in the same. However, on the enhancement amount the simple interest would be payable at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order passed in this appeal. It is also made clear that on the enhanced amount. i.e. Rs. 2,40,177 the rate of interest from the date of prosecution of petition till the date of order passed in this appeal shall be simple interest @ 6% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal.

In view of above, the appeal is accordingly allowed in part.

The enhanced amount of compensation with interest as directed hereinabove shall be deposited by the respondent No. 3 New India Assurance Company Limited, within one month from the date of order passed in this appeal. The amount already deposited shall be adjusted. The amount deposited in this Court, if any be remitted forthwith to the Tribunal. The Tribunal will disburse the amount in accordance with the principle laid down by the Apex Court in General Manager, General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, . There shall be no order as to costs.