SUSHEELAMMA Vs. NOORUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-Ill, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in the M. V. C. No. 986 of 1993, awarded aggregate compensation of rs. 2,26,944 to the wife and minor children of deceased Muniraju, who was working as Driver-cum-Excise Guard in the Excise department. At about 3 a. m. on the morning of 15. 6. 1993, he was driving car No. MEY 6000 from Kolar towards Bangalore and it has been established that due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry No. MYT 5310, a collision took place near Hosakote, resulting in the death of muniraju. The Tribunal, for the purpose of computation had accepted the figure of rs. 2,364 as the monthly salary of the deceased and there is no dispute about the fact that the computation seems to have been rightly done except for the fact that on re-examination, we find that the correct multiplier ought to have been 15 and not 12. We have accordingly done the requisite re-computation, but, we need to deal with the other legal aspect that is of some consequence in this case.

(2.) WHILE there is no dispute about the figures relating to the salary income of the deceased, what has been brought on record is that he was a Government employee and that he was aged only 36 years when the accident took place. It has also been demonstrated that the salaries came to be revised and the necessary evidence from the Department has been procured for the purpose of establishing that the revised salary of the Excise Guard would have been Rs. 3,498 per month as on March, 1996. On the basis of this evidence, the appellants' learned advocate pointed out to us that the courts have now accepted the principle, while assessing the income, etc. , of taking into consideration the element of future potential/increase in the earning capacity and his submission is that irrespective of anything else, the deceased himself would have been drawing a higher salary by virtue of the revision which the tribunal has overlooked. Our attention has been invited to the decision of the Apex court in Sarala Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, 1996 ACJ 581 (SC), wherein the Supreme court had occasion to reiterate the principles earlier laid down in General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC ). The law is well settled with regard to these principles and it was very necessary for the Tribunal to have taken cognizance to the effect that while doing a notional calculation of what the earning capacity of the deceased would have been in the projected future, it was very necessary to take into account the fact that by virtue of the upward revision of the salary the old figures on the basis of which the working has been done would not hold good. Since there is no evidence before us with regard to the exact date from when the revision has taken place, we have taken into account the point of time when the evidence was tendered and Exh. P-14, which is the tabulation, was presented before the Tribunal as an exhibit and consequently, we have maintained the computation for the first three years and thereafter revised it and applied the multiplier of 15 for'the remaining period from 1996, on the basis of the higher figure of Rs. 3,498 per month. On the basis of this figure, revised compensation will work out to Rs. 3,92,544 out of which deducting Rs. 2,26,944, the amount awarded earlier, balance of Rs. 1,65,600 will work out as the enhancement.

(3.) THE appellants' learned advocate has pointed out to us that the Tribunal was in error in not having awarded interest. That error will have to be corrected and consequently, the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum for the entire period, i. e. , from the date of application up to the date of payment will have to be computed on the aggregate amount. The balance amount to be deposited with the Tribunal within an outer limit of 12 weeks from today.