K.V. KOUSALYA SUBRAMANIAN Vs. RIYAZ MOHAMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Claimants against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nasik. The original Claimants were the widow, two minor children and the mother and father of the deceased, who was a victim of a motor accident. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation to the Claimants, including Rs. 15,000/- for consortium to the widow and Rs. 10,000/- for shock and suffering to the mother and father. It is aggrieved by this quantum, that all the Claimants preferred the present appeal. During she pendency of the appeal, Appellant No. 4 died, and hence, the appeal is being prosecuted by rest of the Claimants only.

(2.) SHRI Suchak, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Claimants, contended that the Tribunal had under-calculated the amount of compensation. His first contention was that the Tribunal had proceeded on the basis that the deceased was to retire at the age of 65 years. For this presumption there was no evidence on record. He further submitted that the minimum life-expectancy for the deceased should have been taken as 70 and the compensation calculated on that basis. His second submission was that the dependency rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month taken by the Tribunal was on a lower side considering the fact that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 3,682/- per month. It was erroneous according to him, to hold that the deceased was spending more than Rs. 1,000/- on himself. He therefore contended that the minimum dependency rate ought to have been taken as Rs. 3,000/- per month. His third grievance was that the Tribunal had wrongly deducted an amount of Rs. 90,000/- received under the life insurance policy of the deceased from the total amount of compensation to which the claimants were entitled. His fourth submission was that the Tribunal had also erred in deducting an amount of Rs. 50,000/- which was paid by the Company to the Claimants as an ex-gratia payment although on account of the death of the victim. His last submission was that the Tribunal had scaled down the compensation amount by as much as 46% on account of the fact that the amount of compensation was to be received in lumpsum and also on account of the uncertainty of life. He made a serious grievance that the said rate of scaling down was excessive and not supported by decision of any Court, in support of his submissions he relied on various decisions viz; (1) (Smt. Amarjit Kaur and Ors. v. Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.); (2) (Jaikumar Chhaganlal Patna and Ors. Mary Jerome D'Souza and Ors.); (3) (Smt. Manjushri Raha and Ors. v. B.L. Gupta and Ors.) ; (4) 1979 Accidents Claims Journal page 170 (Lachman Singh and Ors. v. Gurmit Kaur and Ors.) which is a decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab High Court and (5) the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 1984 (Volume I) of the Transport and Accident Cases at page 247 (Polavarapu Somarajayan and Ors. v. APRT).

(3.) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary first to note the relevant facts. The deceased was serving as an Engineer in one Aluminium Company Limited, Mattur Dam. Along with two other Engineers, he had gone to Nasik for the Company's business and they were all proceeding by a taxi to Bombay. It was during this journey from Nasik to Bombay that a truck coming in speed from the opposite direction dashed against the taxi and the deceased met his death in the said accident. The deceased was at the time of the accident 47 years old. He was appointed in the company in 1964 on a monthly salary of Rs. 1,450/- in the scale of Rs. 1000-50-2000. At the time of his death, he was drawing the maximum salary in the time scale, i.e. Rs. 2,000/- per month, and according to the letter produced by the Company (Ex. 71), his basic salary was Rs. 42,090/-, dearness allowance Rs. 2,100/- and vehicle allowance Rs. 4,500/- i.e. in all Rs. 48,690/- per year. Excluding the vehicle allowance, the gross annual salary of the deceased was Rs. 44,190/- which comes to Rs. 3,682/- per month, There is unfortunately no evidence on record to show the retirement or superannuation age in the Company, and the learned Judge has by a rule of thumb assumed that the deceased would have served up to the age of 65 years. The members of his family at the time of his death, were himself, his wife, his two minor children and his mother and father. The evidence on record further shows that the deceased had four other brothers, who were well placed. The father of the deceased had a house at Tirpur. However, his parents had come to reside with him some years prior to the accident. There is thus nothing on record to show that the parents were exclusively dependent upon the deceased. The evidence also shows that the deceased had taken a Life Insurance Policy of Rs. 90,000/-. He was also contributing to the Provident Fund. He had invested Rs. 25,000/- in shares. He was also member of a club. As the first Applicant-widow has stated, he was spending Rs. 500/- per month for himself and was giving the remaining amount to the family for domestic expenses, although she has also further stated that the deceased was spending about Rs. 2,500/- per month for family expenses. The evidence further shows that the Claimants have received Rs. 28,000/- as gratuity and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation from the Company on account of the accidental death of the deceased. They have also further received Rs. 90,000/- under the Life Insurance Policy of the deceased. It is on the basis of this evidence on record that we have to decide whether the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal was incorrect, as contended by the Appellants. There is no cross objection filed by the Respondents.