MISHRI DEVI Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two sets of appeal one filed by the legal heirs of deceased 0m Prakash and the other by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Since the point involved in both these appeals is the same i.e. challenge to the amount of compensation awarded, hence these appeals are taken up together and disposed of by one order.

(2.) 20th August, 1987 w.as the dark day in the life of Smt. Mishri Devi when her husband and father of S/Sh. Ram Kishan, Mahanand, Niraj, Sushil, Satish, Master Ashok as well as Km. Manisha Kaushik and Sunita was snatched away from them due to the accident caused by Sh.Trilochan Singh, driver of Mini Bus No. DLP-5663. Late Sh.Om Prakash was going on his two-wheeler Vespa Scooter on Malviya Nagar Road at 11.00 a.m. He was on his correct side of the road when from the opposite direction coming from Panchsheel Road crossing side, the Mini Bus in question driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner hit his scooter. The bus dragged the scooter and the deceased to a considerable distance. Due to this accident O.P. Sharma lost his life. Smt. Mishri Devi his wife and children became orphans because their sole bread earner was done to death due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Mini Bus.

(3.) Sh.Om Prakash was a teacher in a Government School at the time of his death. He was 46 years old. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,165.75 paise per month. He left behind his wife and eight children out of which five were minors. The elder daughter Km. Manisha was 19 years of age. So far as the factum of accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Mini Bus there is no dispute over that. There is also no dispute over the fact that the deceased was 46 years old and a teacher in a Government School drawing a salary of Rs.1,165.75 P. per month. And that he left behind 8 children, out of whom five were minor. The only controversy raised by the claimants in their appeal has been that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) did not correctly apply the multiplier particularly when the longivity of the life in the family of deceased was fully established. The Tribunal instead of applying the multiplier on the basis of longivity of life in the family of the deceased, applied the multiplier of 12 years without any basis. Secondly, the Tribunal was not justified in deducting the amounts from the award on account of provident fund, pension, lump sum payment and income tax etc. He also could not have deducted I/3rd out of the awarded amount as personal expenses of the deceased particularly when it was proved on record that the deceased had to support a large family. Finally no provisions have been made in the award with regard to the marriage expenses of the unmarried daughters and for the study of children.