NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PROMILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Even though in the grounds of appeal the judgment and award of the Tribunal has been assailed on two counts, with respect to the finding about the rashness and negligence and the quanum of compensation, during the course of hearing of the case today Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that she does not press the ground regarding the rashness and negligence and that the only ground which she is urging against the impugned award is with respect to the quantum of compensation. No other point was urged.

(2.) The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 7,92,000, apart from awarding Rs. 10,000 each to every claimant under the heading of 'conventional damages on account of loss of love and affection'. The methodology adopted by the Tribunal for arriving at the compensation amount of Rs. 7,92,000 was this: The Claims Tribunal even though found and held that as per evidence adduced, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 3,276.71, looking to his future prospects he treated his monthly income at Rs. 6,500 and by deducting 1/3rd of this amount towards personal expenses of the deceased (and hence 2/3rd of this amount was the loss of dependency), the loss of dependency as far as the claimants are concerned, was worked out at Rs. 4,400 per month. By applying the multiplier of 15 to the annual loss of dependency on the aforesaid formula, the compensation amount was capitalised at Rs. 7,92,000.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was absolutely no evidence adduced by the claimants before the Tribunal about the future prospects or the advancement in career as far as the deceased was concerned and that no evidence whatsoever was also led by the claimants to establish any fact as to whether at any point of time the deceased was to be promoted and if so on what basis and if he was to be promoted in future what would have been the scale of his pay and how much amount under various heads he would be getting from his employer. I agree fully with the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and on careful scrutiny of the record do find that not a whisper or murmur was raised before the Tribunal to the aforesaid effect by the claimants nor was any evidence led with respect to the future promotion, future prospects, or the future advancement or increment in the career of the deceased.