SAVITRI DEVI Vs. PALA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Dia died in a road accident which took place on 11.7.1997. In a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the widow and four minor children of the deceased, seeking compensation for his death, Claims Tribunal on a consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that income of the deceased was Rs. 4,971 per month and after spending '/5th of this amount on himself, the deceased might have been contributing a sum of Rs. 4,000 per month to the claimants. The Claims Tribunal, however, after observing that the claimants would be getting family pension of about Rs. 2,000 per month, assessed the dependency of the appellants on the deceased at Rs. 2,000 per month, i.e., Rs. 24,000 per annum. Claims Tribunal chose multiplier of 15 for computing the amount of compensation and thus awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,69,500 including a sum of Rs. 2,000 on account of funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium and Rs. 2,500 for loss to estate, by its award dated 31.7.1998 with interest. Hence this appeal at the instance of the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

(2.) Learned/counsel for the appellants submitted that it stood clearly proved on record that the deceased at the time of death was drawing emoluments to the tune of Rs. 4,971 per month. Claims Tribunal erred in deducting the amount payable to the appellants on account of family pension, from the income of the deceased. Submission of the learned counsel in other words is that for determining the income of the deceased and assessing the dependency of the appellants on him, the amount which is payable on account of family pension was not liable to be deducted. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon Bhagat Singh Sohan Singh v. Om Sharma, 1983 ACJ 203 (P&H) and N. Sivammal v. Managing Director, Pan- dian Roadways Corporation, 1985 ACJ 75 (SC).

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the contention has merit. Pension/family pension payable to the widow could not be taken into consideration for reducing the dependency of the claimants. We have gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants and find that these judgments fully support the contention of the learned counsel. Even during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents conceded that the amount payable on account of family pension could not be deducted from the amount of dependency. From the perusal of the award, we also find that the Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the deceased at the time of death was drawing a sum of Rs. 4,971 per month by way of his salary. The deceased left behind five persons who were dependent upon him. Thus in view of the number of dependants left behind by him and further having regard to the fact that the deceased must be parting with some amount on account of income tax and other statutory deductions, we are of the opinion that the appellants might be dependent upon the deceased to the extent of Rs. 3,500 per month and not Rs. 4,000 per month as held by the Tribunal. On an examination of the award, we further find that the deceased at the time of death was 41 years of age. In this view of the matter, multiplier of 15 could not have been chosen. Having regard to the age of the deceased at the most a multiplier of 14 could be chosen for computing the compensation Once the dependency of the appellants is assessed at Rs. 3,500 per month and multiplier of 14 is chosen for computing the compensation, the amount of compensation works out to Rs. 5,88,000, i.e., (Rs. 3,500 x 12 x 14). The Claims Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000 on account of funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium and Rs. 2,500 for loss to estate. On a consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the Claims Tribunal was not justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 2,500 for loss to estate. Once this amount is excluded, the total compensation payable to the appellants would come to Rs. 5,95,500, i.e., Rs. 5,88,000 plus Rs. 7,500 payable for loss of consortium and on account of funeral expenses.