NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RATTAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NEW India Assurance Co. Ltd. is in appeal against the award dated 10.1.2006, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ropar (for brevity 'the Tribunal'). It has been categorically found that the accident was caused by a culpable and negligent driving of Shyam Lal driver, respondent No. 7, while he was driving truck No. HP 23-A 2466, which resulted in the death of Sumitra Chand. It has been indicated in the concluding para 8 of the award that negligence of the truck driver is evident because he had caused three deaths first by striking against the motorcyclist near railway crossing, then the cyclist and later on one Piara Singh. It has further been held that the widow Rattan Devi alone was dependent upon the deceased Sumitra Chand and none of the other claimants were dependent on the deceased. Deceased was a lineman in the Punjab State Electricity Board and was posted at Kiratpur Sahib. His salary was found to be Rs. 13,000 per month at the time of death and he had three years more service. As such his monthly income has been augmented to Rs. 17,000 at the time of superannuation. By taking the average of the two sums, the salary has been assessed at Rs. 15,000 and the dependency is calculated after deducting 1/3rd amount at Rs. 10,000 per month. A multiplier of 5 has been applied to the annual dependency of Rs. 1,20,000, which comes to Rs. 6,00,000. An amount of Rs. 40,000 has again been deducted as per income tax slab and total award of Rs. 5,60,000 has been passed along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation.

(2.) HAVING heard the counsel, we are of the view that no legal infirmity is discernible from the impugned award necessitating interference of this court in exercise of jurisdiction under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. There are categorical findings with regard to culpable negligence which resulted into the death of the husband of the claimant-respondent No. 1. The salary as well as augmented income has been correctly assessed. A multiplier of 5 has also been rightly applied. Therefore, we are of the view that this appeal does not merit admission. Consequently, the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.