M.A.No.1225 of 2003 ia.i*il >l:]Ell!T.!5«tt 1. .Smt. Sarita Yadav, wd/o !ate Shiv Shankar Yadav, aged 40 years. 2. Shri Shishir Kumar Yada", S/o late Shiv Shankar Yadav, aged 21 years. 3. Ku. Swati Yadav, D/o iate Shiv Shankar Yadav, aged 19 years. 4. Shri Sachin Kumar Yadav, S/o late Shiv Shankar Yaday,aged 16 years, App. No. 4 minor through : motfter and natural guardian App. No. 1 Smt. Sarita Yadav Ali R/o Rajendra Nagar, Biiaspur (ChhatSisgarh). : 1. Shri AJay Kumar Nayak, S/o Shri Bedram Nayak, 42 yrs. R/o vili. Ban Sankra, PS Simga, Distt. Raipur (CG). 2. Dr. Hedgewar Janm Shatabdi Jagriti Mandal, through: Shri Pandri Raoji Kridat Prant Sangh Sanchalak, Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh Office- Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). 3. Branch Manaaer, National Insurance Company City Branch-2, llnd Fioor Govind Mahal, Distt. Coop. Bank GE Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). [APPEAL UNDER SECTION173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT) 'ble Present : S:Q{I Prafult Bharat and Shri Keshav Dewangan, Advocates for appellants Shri Gautam Ktietrapal, Advocate for respondeht No.3. ^) BiB liil|l§B!iS 3. (Delivered on |i /10/2011' This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the lllrd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 40/02 vide award dated 03.09.2003. As against compensation of Rs. 28,81,581/- claimed by unfortunate widow and ctiildren of deceased Shiv Shankar Yadav by filing application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for sh.ort 'MV Act') for the death of deceased in the motor accident on "03.06.2001, the Tribunal av/arded a total sum of Rs. S,66,284/- along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the dste of application till its actual payment. The Tribunal, on a ciose scrutiny of the evidence !ed, held: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No. MP-26-E-6667; Shiv Shankar died on account of injuries sustained in the said accident; insurance company liable for payment of compensation as it could establish breach of any poiicy conditions; awarded foremeritioned amount of compensation to the claimants aions interest @ 6 percent'per annum from the date of application till with ir its actu 4. Shri Pralul! Bharat, learned counse! for the appellants would submit : the Tribunal- has erred in taking salary of deceased Shiv Shankar as Rs. 6167/- p'er month after deducting Rs. 1220/- t'liftl -a!ai decsucted by the department from hls salary on account of GPF, LiC, GTIS and statutory tax and thereby has fallen in error in awardina low amount of compensation. Per contra, Shri Gautam Khetrapal, learned counsel appearing fbr respondent No. 3/ National Insurance Company Limited, supported the award impugned and submitted: the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for any interference. VVe have heard the learned counse! appearing for the parties, perused the records ofthe Tribunal including award impugned. Deceased Shiv Shankar was working as a Peon in Electricity Soard. As per saiary slip (Ex. P/1) his gross earning was Rs. 10..553/- in the month of May, 2001, out of 'which Rs. 2165/- was towards arrears of Dearness Allowance and Rs. 1001/- was tovtfards additional income in that month. Since, the above total amount of Rs. 3166/- was not regular sncome of the deceased, therefore, the Tribunal assessed the gross income of the deceased as Rs. 7387/- per month. The Tribunal further deducted Rs. 1220/- towards GPF, LIC.GTIS, Income Tax and Professional Tax and assessed the net monthly income ofthe deceased as Rs. 6167/-for the purpose of computation of compensation. After deducted 1/3 of it towards personal and living expertses of the deceased, ciaimants monthly dependency was assessed as Rs. 4114/- i.e. Rs. 49,3@8/- per. annum; !ooking to the age of deceased as 46 years at the tlme of accident, applied multiplier of 1 3 and assessed the amount of compensation payable to 'the clairnants on account Q of loss of dependency as Rs. 6,41,784/-. After awarding Rs. 24,500/- on other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,66,284/- as compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal also airected payment of interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. The Supreme Court by Its various pronouncement (Helan C. Re'oello (Mrs.) and others v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another, reported in 1999 (1) SCC 90, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others v. Hari Singh Malviya and others, reported in 2009 (15) SCC 363 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. tndira Shrivastava and others, reported in 2008 (2) SCC 763) has held : the amount of GPF, LIC and GTIS should be included for the computation of income of the deceased on the basis whereof, the amount of compensation payable for the death of bread earner of the claimants is required to be determined. The Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava and others, reported in 2008 (2) SCC-763 has held in para 15 & 19 ofits judgment as under : "15. Simllar view was expressed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in S. Narayanamma v. Secy. to Govt. of India, Ministiy of Telecommunicatlons holding: (APLJ pp. 478-79, para 13) "13. in this background, now we wiil examine .&e present deductions made by the Tribunal from the satary of the deceased in fixing Vne contribution of t'ne deceased to his family. The Tribunal has not even taken proper care while deducting the amounts from the salary of the dgceased, at least the very nature ot deductions from the salary of the deceased. My view is that the deductions made by the Tribunal from the salary such as recovery of housing loan, vehicle ioan, festival advance and other deductions, if any, to the benefit of the estate of the deceased cannot be deducted while computing the net monthly earnings of the deceased. These advances or loans are part of his satary. So far as house rent allowance is concerned, it is beneficial to the entire family of the deceased during his tenure, but for his untimely death the ctaimants are deprived such benefit which they would have enjoyed if the deceased were alive. On the other hand, allowances, like travelling atlowance, allowance for newspapers/periodicats, telephone, servant, club fee, car maintenance, ete., by virtue of his vocation need not be included in the salary white computing the net earninas of the deceased. The finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was getting Rs 1401 as net income every month is unsustainabie as the deductions made towards vehicle ioan and other deductions ,were also taken into consideration while flxing the monthly incpme of the deceased. The above finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the principle of 'just compensation' enunciated by the Supreme Court In the judgment in Hefen case. The Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ninnala Devi heid that determinationof quantum must be liberal and M9 10. 1-1 not niggardly since law values life and timb in a free country 'in generous scales'." 19. The amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthiy income as that would have been added to his month!y income by way contribution to the famlly as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. We may, however, hasten to add that from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted." in view of above, in our considered opinion, altnough the Tribunal has rightly deducted Rs. 360/- i.e. the statutory amount of tax payable by the deceased, but has fallen in error in deducting Rs. 360/- i.e. amount of GPF, LIC and GTIS from the salary of the deceased while computing compensation. Therefore, we propose to re-compute the amount of compensation by taking salary of deceased as Rs. 7027/-per month i.e. Rs. 84,8241- per annum. After deducting usuai 1/3 of it towards personal expenses of the deceased, claimants yearly dependency is assessed at Rs. 56,216/-. Admittedly, deceased was of the age of 46 years at the time of accident, therefore, the muitiplier of 13 as applied by the Tribunal is proper In view of dictum of Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121,.wherein multiplier of 13 has been prescribed for age group of 46-50 years. After multiplying the ciaimants annuai dependency of Rs. 56-;216i- by the multiplier of 13, the appellartts/claimants wouid become entitled for "r:. 7 l-!lKit Rs. 7,30,808/-as compensation on account of loss of dependency. The claimants/appellants are further entitled for Rs. 15,000/- on other heads (Rs. 5000/- each on account of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate), and thus the claimants are entitled for a total sum of Rs. 7,45,808/- as compensation instead of Rs. 6,66,2641- as awarded by the Tribunal. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fiied by the appellants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 6,66,284/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 7,45,808/-. The ciaimants are now entitled to receive Rs. 79,524/- as compensation over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 8476/- as quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 79,524/-. 13, The National Insurance Company Limited is granted 3 months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 88,000/- (Rs. 79,524/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 8476/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation) before the concerning claims Tribunal. No order as tocosts. . —— 's.hu Sd/- Chief'Uusttce Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge