Ai.i^hfti AS IvyiM-Wi 1 Mrs. Deepali Satarkar, W/o Late Dilip Satarkar, Aged about 52 years 2 Dushvant Safarkar, S/o Late Diiip Satarkar, Aged about 27 years 3 Devas.hish Satarkar, S/o Late Satarkar, Aged about 22 years AII are resident of building No.1/37 Kendriya Karmchari Nagar Durg, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, District Durg (CG) The . Oriental Insurance Company Limited; Through Dlvisional Manager Kuchari Chowk, Mandina Mangil, Through The Divisionai Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited Parmanand Building Near Rajendra Chowk, Durg, Distt. Durg (CG) 2 Anil Kumar Singh, S/o Sakal Dev Sing.h, Aged about 45 years, Resident of Krishna Nagar Ward No.5.1 , Police Station Tikara Para Raiptu" (Driver) 3 Proprietor M/s Dubey Travels New Bus Stand Pandari, Raipur (CG) •esent: Shri Sudhir Verma, counsel for the appellants. -[-——" ^s-:ff's •th The followlnQ order of the Court was passed Shri Sudhir Verma, iearned counsel for the appeltants is heard on I.A.No.01/2009, an application for condonatlon of the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of leamed counsel for the appellants and the grounds iaken in the appiicatlon, we are satisfied that the appellanis have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the de!ay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A.No.01/2009, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) On due consideration, I.A.No.02/2009 is aliowed and the appeliants are granted exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned award. 5) Shri Sudhir Verma, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. •6) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additionai Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 25.02.2009, passed in Claim Case No.25/2008.' 7) As against the compensation of Rs.50,78,580/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and major sons of leceased Dilip Satarkar, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. for his death in the motor accident 3-E-:BT fc::-"^~— ^^£'l'~"siSi.>, /y^ "^ fl 1 f/ *l ^,..^^ ~~''-'^TS.:'.^S~C:I;' i^^B-.u^'^ •J :t" on 06.11.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.19,26,752/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 8) Shri Sudhir Verma; learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration future prospects of the deceased v/hile assessing his income and in awarding low compensation of Rs.19,26,752/- only. 9) E'/en according to the claimants, the gross-salary of the deceased at the time of the accident was Rs.23,146/-. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire e'.'idence led by the cisimants about the income of the deceased including the salary-slip (Ex.P/13) found that a sum of Rs.530/- paid as house rent ailowance; Rs.85/- as conveyance allowance; Rs.120/- as washing allowance; snd Rs.795/- as station allowance, totaiing to Rs.1,530/- was required to be deducted from his gross-saiary of Rs.23,146/- while assessing the income of the deceased for the purpose of computation of the compensation. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed the income of the deceased jiy deducting Rs.1,530/- from Rs.23,146/- at Rs.21,616/-. 10) On due consideration of the reasonings given by the Tribunal in paras 13 and 14 of the impugned award, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of She deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.21,616/-. ?\ -. ^ \-' 11) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting the usual 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased as of the three ciaimants, two sons of the deceased are major aged about 27 years and 22 years and as such cannot be held to be dependent on the income of the deceased. Slnce there were only two members i.e. deceased Dilip Satarkar and his wife Smt. Dsepal Satarkar dependent on the income of the deceased, the deduction of 50% of the Income of the deceased towards his personal expenses would have been more appropriate. 12) The multiplier of 11 selected by the Tribunal cannot be held to be on the lower side consldering that deceased Diiip Satarkar was aged about 51 years and his wife Smt. Deepaii Satarkar was shown to be 52 years of age in the clalm petition. 13) So far as the submission of..learned counsei for the appellants about non-consideration of the future prospects of the deceased by the Tribunal while assessing his income is concerned, a reference to para 24 of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Saria Verma (smt.) anjj.others Vs. telhl Transport Corporation And Others, reported in (2008)' 6 ICC -121 wou!d suffice. The sa1d para 24 reads as follows: "24. In Susamma Thomas {(1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335} this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Saria Dixit {W96) 3 SCC 179} the income was • increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah {(2003) 2 •V-.- 'v^- SCC 148 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 746} the income was incressed by a mere 7%. In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favcur of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual saiary income of the deceased tovi/ards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 4Q years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range; the words "actual salary" shouid be read as "actual salary less taK'). The addition should be only 30% if the aae of the deceased was 40 to 50 vears. There should be no addition, where the aae of the deceased is more than 50 vears. Though the evidence may indlcate a dirferent percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was seif-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual Increments, etc.}, the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made on!y in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances." 14) Deceased Dilip Satarkar admittedly was aged about 51 years on the date of the accident. In view of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (smt.) and no addition to the actual salary of the deceased is permissi where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. therefore, do no find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal In considering the future prospects of the deceased whi assessing the income ofthe deceased at Rs.21,616/- per month. 15) For the foregoing reasons, we do not flnd any enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Trit 16) The appea! filed by the appeitants/ enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liab dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. for to be Sd/- Chief Jastice Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge subbu .»»