RAJBALA Vs. MAHESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the award dated 24.11.2005 of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short). Vide the impugned award a compensation of Rs.14,83,520/-, which was rounded to figure of Rs.14,84,000/-, was granted to the appellant/ claimants on account of death of Rajinder Singh, who died in a road accident which took place on 2.2.05. The deceased was employed as Head Constable with Delhi Police. The compensation was made up of Rs.14,33,520/- on account of financial loss of dependency of the claimants and Rs.50,000/- on account of funeral expenses, pain & sufferings, loss of love & affection, loss of consortium and loss of estate.

(2.) The appellants have assailed the impugned award alleging the awarded compensation on account of financial loss of dependency of the claimants to be on lower side. The point urged in the present appeal is that the learned Tribunal had applied multiplier of 11 which was on much lower side. It was submitted that keeping in view the age of deceased, the multiplier which was applicable was 14 and not 11. It was also submitted that the deceased left behind as many as five dependants and that being so, 1/4th of his income ought to have been deducted as towards his personal and living expenditure instead of 1/3rd as has been done by the Tribunal. To buttress these submissions reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sarla Verma and Others v Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 AIR(SC) 3104. The fluid situation of the courts and Tribunal applying different multipliers and making different deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). This was not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/insurance company. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced here as under:

(3.) In view of the above judgment, the age of the deceased being 45 years, the multiplier of 14 was to be applied instead of 11. Likewise, since the deceased left behind 5 dependants, 1/4th of his income was to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses instead of 1/3rd. That being the position of law, the Tribunal, apparently, seems to have erred in applying the multiplier of 11 and also in making deduction of 1/3rd of the income of deceased towards his personal and living expenses. Consequently, the award needs modification.