Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was unmarried and aged 22 years at the time of accident and was a graduate in B.A. She was working as faculty in ACME Computers, Dilsukhnagar and was getting a monthly salary of Rs.5,000/- and they filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

4. As the claimants did not examine any person to prove the salary certificate which was marked as Ex.A-6, the Tribunal taking the income of the deceased at Rs.60/- per day and Rs.1,800/- per month and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure of the deceased and applying the multiplier '11' based on the average age of the parents of the deceased as per second schedule under Section 163-A of the Act; arrived at the loss of earnings of the deceased at Rs.1,58,400/-. The Tribunal further awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.4,600/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and thus in all awarded an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is meagre and it has not taken into consideration the facts and circumstances on record. He reiterating the averments made in the claim petition, submits that the deceased was a graduate in B.A. and was working as faculty in a computer centre and produced salary certificate issued by the firm to show that she was getting a monthly salary of Rs.5,000/-, but the Tribunal not believing the same, has taken the monthly income at Rs.1,800/-, which is very meagre. He further submits that the deceased was aged 22 years as on the dated of the accident, and she was unmarried, therefore, for applying appropriate multiplier, her age has to be taken into consideration and not the age of the parents of the deceased. He submits that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION1 , the appropriate multiplier for the age group of the deceased is '18', but the Tribunal, taking the average age of the parents of the deceased, used (2009)6 SCC 121 the multiplier of '11', therefore, the same requires to be modified. He further submits that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. PRANAY SETHI2, the claimants are entitled for future prospects of the salary of the deceased at 40 per cent and they are entitled for conventional charges of Rs.15,000/- each under the heads of 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses'. He submits that the Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head of 'future prospects' and the amount granted for loss of estate and funeral charges at the rate of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively are very meagre. Therefore, he sought to enhance the compensation.

9. From the material on record, it could be seen that the deceased was unmarried and was aged 22 years at the time of accident and as per Ex.A-7 degree certificate, she is a graduate in B.A. The case of the claimants is that she is working as faculty in ACME computer centre and AIR 2017 SC 5157 earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month and in support of their claim, they sought to rely on Ex.A-6, salary certificate. The Apex Court in the decision reported in RAMACHANDRAPPA v. THE MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED3 has taken the monthly income of a daily wager at Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, the monthly salary of the deceased, claimed at Rs.5,000/-, cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. Therefore, the monthly salary of the deceased taken by the Tribunal at Rs.1,800/- is modified and accordingly, the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month.