SHASHI JAIN Vs. RAJINDER YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the only question involved in this case is whether the multiplier applied by the Tribunal to arrive at just compensation payable to the appellants is correct and whether at the time of assessing compensation payable to the family of the deceased, the Tribunal ought not have taken into consideration the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased, learned Counsel for the parties state that as both these questions can be answered on the basis of the impugned judgment, it may not be necessary to requisition the file from the Tribunal. I have, therefore, proceeded to decide this appeal without waiting for the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

(2.) ADMIT.

(3.) A few facts relevant for deciding this appeal are : That the husband of the appellant and father of appellants 2 and 3 died in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The deceased at the time of his death was 41 years of age and was employed as a Junior Engineer with the PWD. His salary at the time of the accident was Rs. 11,942/- per month. The Tribunal taking the salary of the deceased at Rs. 12,000/- per month deducted 1/3rd from this towards his personal expenses and the loss of dependency to the family was taken at Rs. 8,000/- per month. Applying the multiplier of 12, the Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency to the family of the deceased at Rs. 11,52,000/- awarding another sum of Rs. 19,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages and funeral expenses, etc., the total compensation of Rs. 11,71,000/- was directed to be paid to the appellants. The appellants have now filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. As already mentioned above, the only ground urged by learned Counsel for the appellants is that while arriving at the loss of dependency to the family of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased and unless there are special reasons to deviate, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act.