POONAM AND OTHERS Vs. MOHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants have filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sirsa to the extent of granting inadequate compensation to them.

(2.) The Tribunal, after assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.14,000/-, applied a cut of 1/3rd so as to calculate the dependency as Rs.8,500/- per mensem or Rs.1,02,000/- per annum. The age of the deceased being 30 years, multiplier of '15' was applied so as to calculate the total dependency as Rs.15,30,000/-. In addition to the same, Poonam- appellant, who is the wife of deceased Vineet Kumar, was granted Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and all the claimants were awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and, accordingly, the total compensation was worked out to be Rs.15,37,000/-. Out of the said amount, Rs.5,37,000/- was ordered to be paid to the widow, Rs.4,00,000/- to each of the two sons of the deceased and Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the parents of the deceased. All the respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.

(3.) Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the deceased earlier used to work as a property dealer and earning handsome amount. In the month of March, 2007, he was appointed as Real Estate Advisor with Karni Infrastructure and Property Private Limited and his total earnings in the year was Rs.2,50,800/-. The said income was duly reflected in the income tax return for the assessment year 2008-09, which was filed on 31.7.2008, seven days before the deceased met with an accident in which he lost his life. For the earlier two assessment years, i.e. 2006-07 and 2007-08, his annual income was Rs.96,900/- and 99,750/-, respectively. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in assessing his monthly income as Rs.14,000/- at the time of his death. It is also submitted that deduction of no more than 1/4th should have been made by the Tribunal in assessing the dependency. Even the multiplier of '15' applied by the Tribunal is on the lower side as in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 3 RCR(Civ) 77, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that multiplier of '17' was to be applied where the deceased was in the age group of 26 to 30 years. It is also submitted that keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others , 2012 2 RCR(Civ) 882, 30% increase in his total income over a period of time has to be applied while calculating the amount of compensation. Prayer has accordingly, been made for enhancement of the compensation amount.