SMT. BUDHULAKSHI DEBBARMA Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - (Oral) These two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since both the petitions arise out of one award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal).

(2.) The claimants, Budhu Laxmi Debbarma and Pradip Kumar Debbarma have filed the claim petition alleging that their son Pintu Debbarma, who was about 20 years old, died as a result of injuries received in a motor vehicle accident. The allegations are that the deceased after performing his duties was returning from Jwalchera towards Battalion Head Quarters at Lalcherra by the vehicle owned by the State. This vehicle met with an accident and the claimants alleged that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligence driving of the deceased. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,345.00, deducted Rs.140.00 on account of professional tax and taking the balance amount of Rs.10,205.00 added 50% towards the future prospects of the deceased and therefore, took the monthly salary at Rs.15,307.50.00. Income for 13 months was taken because it was proved that in the Tripura Police an employee is paid for 13 months instead of 12 and, therefore, the yearly income was taken at Rs.1,98,998.00. 50% was deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased and multiplier of 14 was applied taking into consideration the age of the parents and compensation was assessed at Rs.13,92,986.00. In addition thereto, Rs.2000.00 was awarded for funeral expenses and a total compensation of Rs.13,94,986.00 was awarded.

(3.) One appeal has been filed by the claimants. In this petition the main grievance is that the multiplier would be 18 and not 14 because if 50% is being deducted the age of the deceased has to be taken into consideration. It is also urged that the amount awarded for funeral expenses is on the lower side and that no amount whatsoever has been awarded for loss of love and affection of the son. On the other hand, the State has also filed an appeal in which it is alleged that the income has wrongly been taken at Rs.10,345.00 per month because, in fact, the income was only Rs.6,533.00 per month.