IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Smt. Kanku & Ors.Vs. Surjeet Singh & Others (S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.31/2006) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Date of Judgment: August 19, 2008 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. Sunil Jain, for the appellants. Mr. Jitendra Mitruka, for respondents. BY THE COURT: The appellants have challenged the award dated 28-9-2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge FT No.1) Beawar (`the Tribunal' for short) whereby for the death of Narayan Lal, the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.4,63,448/- along with interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. The appellants have prayed for enhancement of the compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25-10-1998 informant Pukhraj submitted a written report at Police Station Diwar to the effect that on the said day around 4 PM as soon as he reached the village Jassa, he saw that Narayan Lal Khatik was parking his motor cycle on left side of the road and Kailash was sitting on rear seat of the motor cycle. At the same time, a truck, bearing No.GJ-TT-7747 came from the side of Bassi village, it hit the motor cycle. Consequently, Narayan Lal and Kailash died on the spot. The dependants of Narayan Lal filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. The claim petition was decided by the award dated 28-9-2005. Hence the instant appeal. 3. Mr. Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that upon a letter written to the Principal of the School, where Narayan Lal was working, he had issued the salary certificate. According to the salary certificate, the net salary was Rs.5450/-, the dearness allowance was Rs.1199/- and the House Rent Allowance was Rs.273/-. However, while interpreting the said certificate, the learned Tribunal has erroneously concluded that the net salary was Rs.3566/- after deduction made by the employer. According to the learned counsel, this is clearly misreading of the certificate. According to him, the Dearness Allowance has to be read as a part of the income earned by the deceased. In order to support his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of National Insurance Company Vs. Indira Srivastava [2008 (1) TAC 424 (SC)]. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Jitendra Mitruka, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has contended that the said certificate has been properly interpreted by the learned Tribunal and correct deductions have been made. Therefore, learned Tribunal was justified in concluding that the deceased was earning merely Rs.3566/- per month. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, examined the material available on the record, and perused the impugned award. The salary certificate dated 5-2-2001 has also been produced before this court by learned counsel for the appellants. 6. A bare perusal of the salary certificate clearly reveals that Narayan Lal was paid a basic salary of Rs.5450/-, along with dearness allowance of Rs.1199/- and House Rent Allowance of Rs.273/-. Obviously the dearness allowance has to be read as part of salary earned by Narayan Lal. Thus, clearly his take home salary was Rs.6649/-. Hence, learned Tribunal is not justified in taking the income of the deceased to be Rs.3566/-. Since out of Rs.6649/- the deceased would have spent 1/3rd of the salary upon himself, he would have spent Rs.4432/- upon the claimants. Therefore, while calculating the loss of dependency, Rs.4432/- will have to be utilised in the formula. Thus, the dependants of the deceased Narayan Lal are entitled to receive the compensation as under:- 4432 x 12 x 16= 8,50,944/-. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that while Rs.5,000/- has been paid to appellants No.2 to 6 for the “loss of love and affection” suffered by them, no compensation has been paid to appellant No.3 for “loss of consortium”. This contention is borne out from a bare perusal of the impugned award whereby the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for “loss of consortium”. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that Rs.10,000/- should be paid to appellant No.3 for the “loss of consortium”, she has suffered due to untimely death of her husband. The appellants shall also be entitled to the interest 6% as has been awarded by the Tribunal. 8. In the result the appellants are entitled to receive the compensation as under:- Loss of dependency 4432x12x16= 8,50,944/-. Loss of consortium to appellant No.3 10,000/- Loss of love and affection 5,000/- Expenses of funeral 2,000/- ----------------------- 8,67,944/- 9. The impugned award is modified as indicated above and the learned Tribunal is directed to ensure the compliance of the order of this court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. arn