UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD Vs. NOOSHINA SHAMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment/Award dated 9th of August, 2008 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge-Cum-Claims Tribunal, Patna, in Claim Case No. 132 of 1997 on an application filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal upon considering the evidence on the record allowed a total compensation of Rs. 29,00,000/- (Twenty nine lacs) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till the date of payment by the United India Insurance Company Ltd.-the insurer. The United Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ''the Insurance Company"), being aggrieved by the said Award, has preferred the present appeal. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are that the husband of claimant no. 1 while travelling in Toyota Car bearing registration No. DEB-1166 on 30th of December, 1996 met with an accident with a truck bearing registration No. DNG-0020 at G.T. Road near Village- Chacha, P.S.- Bhogoan, District Mainpuri (U.P.). In the said accident, the husband of claimant no. 1, namely, Shams Tauheed, who was working as a General Manager in Shaw Wallace & Company Ltd., aged about 41 years, died leaving behind his widow and three minor children. A First Information Report with respect to the said accident was lodged, vide Ext. 3, post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased was held vide Ext.4, the police after investigation submitted charge sheet, vide Ext. 5 and a death certificate was also obtained, vide Ext.6.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased without any documentary evidence to show that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 18,500/- per month; in addition to the perquisites worth Rs. 28,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- and as such, committed a serious error in calculating the monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 27,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, could not dispute that since the deceased has left behind four legal heirs, the personal expenses to be reduced from the income of the deceased would be one-fourth instead of one-third allowed by the Tribunal as also since the age of the deceased was 41 years, the correct multiplier would be 14 instead of 13 in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 6 SCC 121.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents (claimants) supports the judgment under appeal, however, he also submits that the Tribunal ought to have taken the correct multiplier of 14 instead of 13 and also the personal expenses could be reduced by one-fourth (1/4th) since the deceased had left behind four legal heirs; relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court. It is submitted that the monthly income arrived at by the Tribunal is correct.