NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs. ANJALI MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present miscellaneous appeal is filed under section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( hereinafter would be referred as to the "Act of 1988") against the award dated 9.5.2018 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No.713 of 2017 whereby claim application preferred by the claimants under Sec. 166 of the Act of 1988 was allowed awarding total compensation to the tune of Rs. 51,27,505.00.

(2.) Precisely stated facts are that the husband of respondent No.1, Neeraj Mishra (since deceased) was dashed by container bearing No.HR38-T-4390 while he was coming from Shivpuri to Gwalior on his motorcycle, resulting in his death on 1.6.2017 at about 2 PM. He was aged about 39 years and survived by his wife Smt. Anjali Mishra respondent No.1, daughter Ku.Pragya Mishra, son Kushagra Mishra respondent No.2 and widow mother Smt. Shashi Mishra respondent No.4. Hence, the claim petition was filed before the claims tribunal as aforesaid claiming total compensation of Rs. 1,09,000,00.00 which came up for hearing on 9.5.2018 and allowed as stated herein above.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in passing impugned award whereby, an amount of Rs. 51,27,505.00 was awarded in favour of respondents/claimants. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly stressed on the judgment rendered by Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) ACJ 1298, and submits that learned Tribunal erred in passing impugned award on the basis of recommendations of VII Pay Commission. The accident was caused on 1.6.2017 and at that time, recommendations of VII Pay Commission were not made effective by the State Government, therefore, calculation so made by the Tribunal considering the salary component of the deceased on the basis of recommendations of VII Pay Commission was erroneous and was based upon the flimsy preposition and contrary to the mandate of Apex Court in the matter. He relied upon paras 45 and 46 of the judgment rendered in case of Sarla Verma (Supra) to bring home the analogy that the compensation is mainly based upon the position at the time of death and not at the time of award and if any proceeding takes place meanwhile in the form of new pay award then, the person cannot be given the benefit of delay caused.