NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. DEEPAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988, challenging an award dated 16. 7. 2002 passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case no. 1 of 2001.

(2.) CLAIMANTS-RESPONDENT Nos. 5 to 8 are the dependants of deceased Gulab Singh bhadoriya who was working as an accountant in the Regional Transport Office, morena. It is stated that he was 45 years of age at the time of accident and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 7,968. He died in a road accident that took place on 3. 7. 2000 when he was travelling in a Maruti van bearing No. MP 07-N 2241 when it dashed with a truck No. MP 08-1729, claiming compensation of Rs. 16,00,000. The claim petition under section 166 was filed on the basis of the evidence and material that came on record, age of deceased was as-sessed at 52 years, 4 months and 26 days and after assessing his monthly salary at rs. 7,968, looking to the fact of future promotion, increment and increase of the salary because of pay revision, monthly income is assessed at Rs. 9,000 and multiplier of 11 is applied and a compensation of Rs. 7,92,000 awarded. After deducting 1/3rd towards self expenses, to this further a sum of Rs. 10,000 is added towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss to estate to the children and a total compensation of Rs. 8,02,000, is awarded along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and penal clause is incorporated in the award to the effect that if the amount is not paid within one month, amount of interest shall be at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.

(3.) ASSAILING the aforesaid assessment made by the Tribunal in this appeal, Mr. S. Gajendragadkar, counsel for appellant insurance company submits that according to the age of deceased he would have retired after completing 7-8 years of service and after retirement the amount of salary received would have been reduced by 50 per cent, i. e. , the pension to be received that being so in applying the multiplier of 11 for the whole period it is said that the learned Tribunal has committed error. Mr. Gajendragadkar further submits that in assessing the salary of deceased at Rs. 9,000 without any basis, learned Tribunal has committed error which requires rectification in this appeal. It is also argued by him that in the present case the penal interest has been awarded without any justification and the same is liable to be interfered with. In support of the contention with regard to assessment of compensation, applicability of multiplier and the reduction in the salary to be granted when the deceased is a government employee and who has to retire mr. Gajendragadkar, invites our attention to a Division Bench judgment of Karnataka high Court in the case of Union of India v. K. S. Lakshmi Kumar, 2001 ACJ 134 (Karnataka) and the principles laid down by a Division Bench of this court in Madhu-kanta Vyas v. Antram Batham, M. A No. 431 of 2001; decided on 2. 2. 2006. Accordingly, Mr. Gajendragadkar, prays for interference in the matter and rejection of the amount of compensation.