Case: Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.Archana Bhupendra Jahagirdar &amp; Others

3. This appeal preferred by thetakes an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 21st November 2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Mumbai. The first and second respondents are the claimants in the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The compensation is claimed on account of death of one Bhupendra in motor accident occurred on 10th May 2003. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on 11th May 2003. There is no dispute that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was validly insured with theThe claim for compensation made by the first and second respondents was in the sum Rs.1,50,00,000/with interest. The first and the second respondents are respectively the widow and minor son of the deceased. It is not necessary to make a reference to the factual aspects regarding the allegations of negligence in as much as the only dispute raised in this appeal is as to the quantum of compensation fixed under the impugned Judgment and Award. By the impugned Judgment and Award, compensation of Rs.74,28,330/with interest @ 8.5% per annum has been granted by the Tribunal.

Reasoning:
7. The deceased was well qualified and was a permanent employee of a reputed company who had already worked for 9 years for the said company. Following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), 50% of the amount will have to be added to his income towards the future prospects of increase in his earnings. Thus, the total emoluments will be Rs.1,00,500/per month. 20% of the amount will have to be deducted towards income tax. Thus, the net amount will be Rs.. One third deduction will have to be made on account of personal expenditure as number of dependents on the deceased are only two. Thus, after deducting the said amount, monthly dependency will come to Rs.53,600/and yearly dependency will be Rs.Going by the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier of 14 will have to be adopted. Even if multiplier of 13 is adopted, the compensation of Rs.74,28,330/At this stage, an argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that as there is no cross appeal or cross objection filed, this Court cannotthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. We must note here that the claim for compensation under section 166 of the said Act is not a suit. In view of section 168, it is the obligation of the Tribunal to determine what is the just compensation payable to the claimants. It is not in dispute that this is an appeal to which the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 are applicable. The present appeal is, therefore, continuation of the proceedings of the original claim application. Therefore, it is the duty of this Court to determine what will be the just compensation payable to the first and second respondents in accordance with settled principles of law. If this Court finds that the just compensation is more than what is granted by the Tribunal, in absence of any appeal or cross objection by the claimants, this Court may not grant any enhancement. However, it is the duty of this Court to compute the just compensation and to determine whether the compensation fixed by the Tribunal is proper. We find that after applying the settled principles laid down by the Apex Court including the principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the compensation of Rs.74,28,330/granted by the Tribunal is not at all unreasonable and in fact the just compensation will exceed that amount.