MEDHA AGGARWAL Vs. NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This claimants' appeal, for enhancement of the awarded amount, has been filed against the award/judgment and decree dated 11th Feb., 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IVth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 205 of 2001 (Smt. Medha Aggarwal and Others Vs. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. And Another), by which the claim petition was partly allowed and the opposite party was directed to pay Rs. 5,25,000.00 as compensation with 9% interest.

(2.) The award has been challenged on number of grounds; namely, (a) the Tribunal has erred in deducting the conveyance allowance, house rent allowance, education allowance, etc. from the income of the appellants; (b) the Tribunal has also erred in using the multiplier of 10; whereas, in view of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009 (2) TAC 677 SC), multiplier of 14 ought to have been applied as the age of the deceased was 44 years at the time of accident; and (c) the Tribunal has erred in not providing future prospect. In support of the submissions reliance has been placed upon few cases of the Honourable Apex Court, namely, Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another (2013 (9) SCC 65) (paras 38, 39 and 43.5); Surti Gupta Vs. United India Insurance Company and Aother (2015 (11) SCC 457) (para 9); Sandhya Rani Debaramma Vs. National Insurance Company and Another (2016 (4) TAC 165) (paras 13 and 14); Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009 (2) TAC 677 SC) (paras 10 and 11); Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others (2013 (9) SCC 54) (paras 8 and 9); and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa and Others (2015 (9) SCC 166).

(3.) In the further submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal has further erred in deducting ?rd from the income of the deceased on account of personal expenses. In his submission, in view of the fact that the dependants were four in number, therefore, ¼th deduction ought to have been made instead of ?rd. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another (2013 (9) SCC 65) (paras 40, 41 and 42) and Sandhya Rani Debaramma Vs. National Insurance Company and Another (2016 (4) TAC 165) (paras 13 and 14).