ANGURI DEVI AND ORS Vs. RAMESH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the above mentioned three appeals, as the same arise out of a common award dated 1.6.1994, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hissar (for short, 'the Tribunal').

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 27.7.1993, Gulab Singh (deceased) was driving scooter No. HR-20-5591 on Agroha Hissar road. At that time, his mother Savitri Devi and and sister's son, namely, Chinu were the pillion riders. When he reached one kilometer away from Durjanpur Chowk towards Agroha, a four wheeler bearing No. HR-20A-6181 came from the opposite side, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and struck against the scooter. Due to the impact, Gulab Singh sustained serious injuries and died on the same day, whereas Savitri and Chinu also sustained multiple injuries. In the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of Gulab Singh, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,71,000/- as compensation, whereas in the claim petitions filed by Savitri and Chinu on account of injuries, they were awarded Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 16,000/- respectively. It is against this award that the claimants are before this Court.

(3.) In FAO No. 2049 of 1994, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was working as V.L.D.A. (Stock Assistant) in Animal Husbandry Department. His age was proved on record as 30 years, his date of birth being 8.4.1963 and the date of accident being 27.7.1993. His salary was proved as Rs. 3,409/- per month. The claimants were widow, parents and two minor children. The submission is that the learned court below while assessing the carry home salary of the deceased deducted the amount of contribution to General Provident Fund and Group Insurance amounting to Rs. 560/- and Rs. 30/- respectively and thereafter taking the salary at Rs. 2,819/- per month, reduced 1/3rd on account of his personal expenses and applied a multiplier of merely twelve. The amount of provident fund was not required to be reduced for determining the carry home salary of the deceased, as the same is nothing but saved earning, which could be saved for the family at home, in bank or with the government in provident fund account. The dependency determined by the learned Tribunal by applying a cut of 1/3rd is on the higher side, considering the number of dependents being five. Even the multiplier should have been 17, considering the age of the deceased. He further submitted that nothing was granted on account of funeral expenses, transportation and loss of consortium.