SIYA WATI Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellants seek enhancement of the compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 22 nd March, 2000 on account of the death of Shri Chand Singh in a road accident.

(2.) The sole submission of Mr. Navneet Goyal, the learned counsel for the appellants, is that a very meagre amount of compensation was awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal by adopting a wrong method of calculating the loss of dependency of the appellants, who are the widow of the deceased, his six children and his father. According to him, after calculating the monthly earnings of the deceased, who was a teacher in Government High School in Jharsa, Gurgaon, to be in the sum of 6,600/- per month (after deduction of tax and after taking into account his anticipated future earnings), the Claims Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3 rd of the aforesaid amount for the personal expenses of the deceased himself. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the deduction in the instant case, keeping in view the fact that the deceased had 8 dependents, ought not to have been more than 1/5 th of the total earnings of the deceased as it is inconceivable that the deceased was spending 1/3 rd of his income on his own upkeep when he had 8 dependent family members. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that after calculating the annual loss of dependency of the appellants, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 15 instead of the multiplier of 12 keeping in view the fact that the deceased fell in the age group of victims between 40 and 45 years of age. Finally, the learned counsel contended that the Claims Tribunal apart from awarding pecuniary compensation to the appellants ought to have awarded non-pecuniary damages to the appellants towards the loss of consortium, the loss of love and affection of the deceased, the loss of the estate of the deceased and the funeral expenses of the deceased.

(3.) At this juncture, it may be mentioned that after admission of the appeal on July 25, 2000, notice of the appeal was duly served, but despite service of notice, the respondent No.3 Insurance Company did not care to contest the case and none appeared on behalf of the Insurance Company to advance arguments in rebuttal.