NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SAROJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The insurance company has filed this appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 24.3.2004 passed by the Sixth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (M.P.) in Claim Case No. 72 of 2003 after obtaining permission for challenging the quantum.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that for the death of Kamalesh Shrivastava, his legal heirs have filed claim petition before the Claims Tribunal for claiming compensation. As per the claim petition, the accident took place on 1.5.2003 when the deceased Kamalesh Shrivastava was travelling in the bus bearing No. UP 75-B 9587 from Bhind to Gwalior. The aforesaid bus was being driven by driver, respondent No. 1. It is alleged in the claim petition that respondent No. 1 was driving the bus rashly and negligently. Near Mehgaon when the driver of the bus was trying to overtake another vehicle, the bus slipped down on the kacha road and dashed with a tree. On account of this accident, the deceased received severe injuries and he was referred for treatment to Gwalior where he died on 9.5.2003. The crime was also registered. In the claim application, it was stated that the deceased was working as an assistant teacher in the Girls Primary School, Lawan District Block Ater. He was getting salary of Rs. 8,732 per month. The claim was contested on various grounds. The Tribunal considered his salary as Rs. 8,500 per month and after deducting 1/3rd amount, the Tribunal assessed the dependency of Rs. 5,666.67 per month and Rs. 68,000 per year and applied the multiplier of 15 and awarded compensation of Rs. 10,20,000. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 14,500 under other heads and awarded the total compensation of Rs. 10,34,500, against the said award, the insurance company has filed this appeal for reducing the compensation on the ground that for computing the compensation only net salary can be taken into consideration. Cross- objection has also been filed to the effect that the income from tuitions of Rs. 2,000 per month has not been considered by the Tribunal and multiplier of 16 ought to have been applied instead of 15 and future increments have also not been considered.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the findings and evidence.