(1.) SINCE both the appeals have arisen from the same award and the point involved are common, hence these appeals are taken up together and disposed by this order. In FAO No. 231/83 appeal is preferred against the award of the Tribunal by the claimants and in FAO No. 274/83 award has been challenged by the owner of the vehicle which according to claimants caused the accident.
(2.) IN FAO No. 231/83 appellants Lado Devi and others i.e. LRs of deceased have assailed the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) on the grounds namely that (1) Dependency loss as assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side; (2) That 20% deduction on account of lump sum payment is against law; (3) Interest ought to have been awarded from the date of the institution of the claim petition; and finally (4) the Insurance Company's liability was unlimited, whereas the Tribunal limited it to Rs. 50,000/-. And in FAO No. 274/83 the owner of the offending vehicle has challenged the award primarily on the ground that his vehicle was not involved in the accident nor its driver was negligent. That compensation awarded is on higher side.
(3.) IN order to dispose the questions raised in both the appeals, it must be stated at the outset that question of deductions at 20% on account of lump sum payment and uncertainties of life is bad in law. Such a point came up before this Court as well as the Apex Court. The Courts by authoritative pronouncement held that such deduction on account of lump sum payment is not permissible. For support reference can be made to the following decisions; Hardeo Kaur and others v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another, 1992 ACJ 300, Rukmani Devi and others v. Om Prakash and others, 1991 ACJ 3, General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and others, 1994 ACJ 1, Dharam Singh and another v. Parveen Sehgal and others, 1992 ACJ 1067 and Chameli Wati and another v. Delhi Municipal Corporation and others, 1984 ACJ 134. The Apex Court in the case of Hardeo Kaur and others (supra) observed that with the value of rupee dwindling due to high rate of inflation, there is no justification for making deductions on account of lump sum payment. Similar view was expressed by this in this Court in Chameli Wati and others (supra) when it said that no deduction on such account is called for and that by permitting this deduction for the benefit of the respondent who had been found negligent and responsible for causing death would be in fact to reward him for his negligence. In view of the law discussed above, the deduction at the rate of 20% ordered by the Tribunal on account of lump sum payment and uncertainties of life cannot be sustained.