SHARDA Vs. GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal has been filed against the award dated 5.5.1994 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neem-ka-Thana, District Sikar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 20 of 1989 by which a sum of Rs. 3,64,360 has been awarded as compensation to the appellants.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that one Chiranji Lal deceased was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No. ROQ 164 being driven by Gopal, driver, respondent No. 1 which met with an accident as a result of which Chiranji Lal deceased suffered injuries and on account of said injuries he died in the said accident. The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased Chiranji Lal. The deceased at the time of accident was employed as a Telephone Operator in the P&T Department and drawing a salary of Rs. 1,611 per month. The learned Tribunal taking into consideration the future prospects of service and particularly, the fact that he was employed in a government job, held the income of the deceased for the purpose of determining the compensation to be as Rs. 3,300 per month as at the time of death of the deceased, he was 32 years of age and had a sufficient long career with the prospects of drawing higher salary and promotions could not be denied. Learned Tribunal held the dependency to the family to be Rs. 2,500 per month and adopted a multiplier of 14. After calculating the annual dependency to be Rs. 30,000 and multiplied by 14, a figure of Rs. 4,20,000 had been arrived at by the Tribunal. From the aforesaid figure, the amount of Rs. 605 per month which was his pension amount deducted on account of the fact that the claimants would receive family pension. Consequently, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,64,360 as compensation.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal has erred in making deduction on account of the fact that Rs. 605 per month was to be received by the family including the appellants as family pension on account of the death of the deceased. In this connection learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of N. Sivammal v. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation, 1985 ACJ 75 (SC). The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention to para 5 of the said judgment wherein their Lordships have held as under: