SUGANTHIE DEVADANAM Vs. DHARAMBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the award dated 19.8.2003 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 11,43,240/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the claimants.

(2.) Sh. O.P. Mannie counsel for the appellants has assailed the said award on the following grounds. Counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 9402/- per month whereas after looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal should have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 10923/- per month. It was urged by the counsel that the tribunal erred in not considering future prospects while computing compensation as it failed to appreciate that the deceased would have earned much more in near future as he was of 44 yrs of age only and would have lived and worked for another 20 yrs had he not met with the accident. The counsel also stated that the Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration that the deceased was to serve 16 years more, upto the age of 60 years and during this period he would have been promoted to higher rank and his pay would have been increased many fold. It was also contended by the counsel that the tribunal did not consider the fact that due to high rates of inflation the deceased would have earned much more in near future and the tribunal also failed in appreciating the fact that even the minimum wages are revised twice in year and hence, the deceased would have earned much more in his life span. The counsel also raised the contention that the rate of interest allowed by the tribunal is on the lower side and the tribunal should have allowed simple interest @ 18% per annum in place of only 9% per annum. The counsel contended that the tribunal has erred in awarding only Rs. 15,000/- as compensation towards loss of love and affection and funeral expenses and no compensation has been awarded for loss of estate, mental pain and sufferings and the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants. In support of his arguments counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the following judgments:-

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The appellants claimants had brought on record the evidence of PW1, S.S. Kapoor, Dy. Manager, SBI, Parliament Street Service Branch, New Delhi, who had duly proved the salary certificate, Ex. PW1/1, of the deceased. According to the said document, the various components of the income of the deceased were; Basic- Rs. 7920; CCA-Rs. 200; DA-Rs. 1681; HRA-Rs. 601; SCA-Rs. 470 and Conveyance allowance-Rs. 50. Apart from this, various deductions were; P.F.-Rs. 792; H/L- Rs. 1400; Personal Loan-Rs. 1200; C/L-Rs. 350; F/A-Rs. 550; MWS-Rs. 40 and MWS- RD-Rs. 20. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased, after deducting SCA and conveyance from Rs. 10923, as Rs. 10403/-.the tribunal further deducted Rs. 1000/- towards tax. In my considered view, I do not feel that the tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 9402/- pm. The recent decision of the Apex Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava and Ors.-2007 (14) Scale 461, will clinch the entire controversy involved in the present appeal. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the term 'income' having regard to the societal conditions should mean the pay packet which the employee carries home at the end of a month including the perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. In this regard, the relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced below:-