KAMLESH MITTAL Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is filed by the appellants for enhancement of compensation vide Award dated 14.12.2009 passed by the tribunal in the claim petition filed by them under Section 166/140 of MV Act.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 29.11.2003 late Shri Mahavir Prasad Mittal was travelling in his car driven by respondent No.6. He was driving towards Mumbai from the factory of respondent No.5 in District Raigarh. A truck driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.3 came from the opposite side and hit the car from the front side of the truck. The car was extensively damaged. Shri Mahavir Prasad and the other occupants of the car Shri Meghraj Jasraj Sakariya sustained fatal injuries.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has stated that the compensation is miserably inadequate. He firstly submits that the deceased Shri Mahavir Prasad Mittal was a highly qualified individual. He was a B.E. and an M.B.A. He further submits that as per the salary certificate Ex. PW1/3 of his employer, he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.52,366/ - which comes to annual salary of Rs.6,28,392/ -. He submits that the tribunal has erroneously ignored the salary certificate and has taken into account the income tax return to take the salary of the deceased as Rs.2,25,000/ -. He submits that this is a completely erroneous computation and the annual salary of the deceased should have been taken as Rs.4,50,000/ - and not based on the Income Tax Returns and balance payment could not be ignored. He further submits that the tribunal wrongly deducted 50% of the amount calculated as expenditure on self for computing loss of dependency. The tribunal noted that the daughter of the deceased was married and his son was in a job. Based on that, the tribunal concluded that the deceased had only one dependent his widow and deducted 50% of the earning towards his personal expenses. Using a multiplier of 11, loss of dependency was calculated as Rs.12,37,500/ -. Counsel submits that this was entirely erroneous as 50% of earnings towards personal expenses as is being deducted in case of a bachelor only who has a tendency to spend more of the income on himself. He submits that a person with one married daughter and elder son would not have spent 50% of earning on himself. He would have accumulated his excess income and added to the assets of the family which would have ultimately been inherited by the children.