NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KUSUM MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned award dated 18. 5. 2005 mainly on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded by the appellant is quite excessive and exorbitant and totally unrelated to the claim set up and proved by the respondent claimants. Brief facts of the case are that on 24. 11. 2000 at about 11 p. m. the deceased Sh. Hem Chandra Mishra was going on two wheeler scooter towards Karala on the road from Avantika to Karala and when he reached in front of Brahm Shakti hospital on Budh Vihar, Kanjhawala Road, Delhi, the truck bearing registration no. DIL 220 which was being driven at a very fast speed, in a rash and negligent manner and on the wrong side of the road, came and hit the two wheeler scooter bearing registration No. DL-8sk-0270 of the deceased from the front side and Sh. Mishra fell down and the wheel of the truck ran over his head and he died on the spot. The accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck driver as per the claim petition.

(2.) MS. Neerja Sachdeva, counsel for the appellant contended that the tribunal has granted future increase merely on the assumption that within a span of 20 years, the salary of the deceased would increase to Rs. 24,000/- per month and then has taken average income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per month by taking the mean of income of Rs. 6604 which he was earning at the time of accident and Rs. 24,000/ -.

(3.) THE contention of learned counsel for the appellant was that the deceased was working on the post of Assistant Typist in DDA and his net income on record with all allowances after deductions was proved at Rs. 6604/- but without there being any evidence on record, the Tribunal itself assumed that the deceased had bright chances of being promoted as typist and thereafter senior typist and ultimately may be a personal assistant and the deceased being of 37 years of age during the span of almost 20 years till the end of his service at retirement would have been earning at least 24,000/- per month. Counsel, thus, contended that the Tribunal at the most, could have applied criteria laid down in Sarla Dixit"s case reported in AIR 1996 SC 1274 so as to grant benefit of future increase and not in a whimsical manner as has been done by the Tribunal in the present case. Learned counsel, thus, sought to urge that if the method of calculation as prescribed in the case of Sarla Dixit case is taken into consideration then the meager amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month shall come out as monthly dependency.