RAJESH Vs. HEERA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants in this appeal seek to assail the judgment and award dated 29.05.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi awarding compensation to the appellants in the sum of ' 5,51,384/- (Rupees five lakh fifty one thousand three hundred and eighty four only) for the untimely demise of Sh. Naresh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 30.1.96.

(2.) A three-fold grievance has been raised by Mr. Ashok Popli, the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to the manner of computation of the award amount by the learned Tribunal. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that though the Tribunal had rightly estimated the salary of the deceased constable in the sum of ' 4,744/- (Rupees four thousand seven hundred and forty four only) per month after adding 50% to his actual salary on the date of the accident, that is, ' 3,163/- (Rupees three thousand one hundred and sixty three only) per month, the Tribunal erred in making the deduction of one-third towards his personal and living expenses. According to Mr. Popli, keeping in view the fact that the appellant left behind him his young widow, two minor sons and parents, a deduction of not more than one-fourth of the salary of the deceased ought to have been made by the learned Tribunal for arriving at the figure constituting the loss of dependency of the appellants. I am inclined to agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, which is in consonance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 with regard to the manner in which the deduction is to be made towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. In the said case, it was observed as follows:-

(3.) AS regards the multiplier, I am of the view that though the trial court erred in applying the multiplier of 14 for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency of the appellants, however, the multiplier of 18, which is sought to be pressed into service by the learned counsel for the appellants is also not the appropriate multiplier in the present case. Had the petition been filed under Section 163-A of the Act, the said multiplier would have been the appropriate multiplier but keeping in view the fact that the present petition is one under Section 166 of the Act, the appropriate multiplier would be the multiplier of 17, which is the tabulated multiplier by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) for the age group of deceased between 26 to 30 years of age. Thus calculated, the total compensation payable to the appellants comes to ' 42, 696/- X 17 = ' 7,25,832/- (Rupees seven lakh twenty five thousand eight hundred and thirty two only).