NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. SUSHILA DABAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 21.10.2008 of Shri Pradeep Chadha, Presiding Officer, MACT (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for short). Vide the impugned award, the petition filed by the wife and children of the deceased Raj Singh Dabas was allowed and a sum of Rs. 16,20,000.00 was granted as compensation to them and also the mother of the deceased who was impleaded as respondent No. 5. The insurance company i.e. the appellant was directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the petitioners and the mother of the deceased in the manner as indicated in the award.

(2.) THE deceased Raj Singh Dabas was aged about 46 years and stated to be engaged in private business. He met with an accident on 10.12.1994 while he along with his brother was going on a two wheeler scooter which was struck by a truck being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. It is pertinent to mention here that Shri N.K. Goel, Learned Presiding Officer, MACT, vide his judgment and award dated 25.08.01 had awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,48,000.00 to the petitioners and the mother of the deceased. He had arrived at this conclusion by taking the age of the deceased as 46 years at the time of his death. The petitioner Sushila Dabas who is the widow of the deceased had stated that her husband was working as Librarian in Aurobindo college upto year 1980 when he went to Libya and returned from there in 1986. Thereafter he could not join his duties and started doing the work of builder. Since all this was not proved on record, the learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs. 1586.00 per month the prescribed minimum wages of a semi-skilled worker at the time of his death. He observed that had the deceased survived, his income would have increased with passage of time and therefore, he assessed the income of the deceased for the remaining part of his life as Rs. 2,000.00 per month. Making a deduction of 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the then Tribunal assessed the dependency loss of the dependants as Rs. 1,500.00 per month or say, Rs. 18,000.00 per annum. He applied the multiplier of 11 and assessed the compensation payable as Rs. 1,98,000.00 (Rs. 18,000.00 x 11). Since the petitioners were already paid Rs. 50,000.00, they along with the mother of the deceased were awarded Rs. 1,48,000.00.

(3.) I have heard Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri J.M. Bari, learned Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3 and 7. The main challenge of the appellant/insurance company is that the compensation awarded by Shri Pradeep Chadha, learned Tribunal, is highly excessive and against the general principles of assessment of compensation in such cases.