Judgment:
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assails the award dated 13.5.2005 in Claim Case No. 93 of 2004 passed by the Twelfth M.A.C.T., Indore insofar as it awards only a sum of Rs. 21,80,000 for the death of Commander Rajbahadur Singh Parmar in motor accident as against the claim of Rs. 1,50,00,000.
2. On 14.1.2004, Commander Rajbahadur Singh, his daughter Shreya and Prakash Chauhan, her daughter Chandrika and Jainu were travelling in Toyota Qualis bearing registration No. DL 9C-G 4775 from Delhi to Indore. Vehicle was being driven very carefully by its driver but near Guna, a truck bearing registration No. MP 07-G 1352 came from the opposite direction being driven rashly and negligently and collided with the said Toyota Qualis. The six persons travelling in the vehicle died. A report of the incident was made to the police and a case was registered against its driver.
3. Claiming that salary of Commander Rajbahadur Singh Parmar was Rs. 28,260, his widow and others, appellant Nos. 1 to 4 filed this appeal for recovery of compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000.
4. Lt. Col. Nikesh Nandan, AW 3, was examined to prove the salary of deceased Commander. According to the statement, the deceased was in receipt of the salary of Rs. 23,111 and out of which deduction of Rs. 4,500 was made for P.F., Rs. 1,000 for general insurance, Rs. 2,556 towards income tax and taking into account the other small deductions, he was in receipt of actual amount of Rs. 12,900. The Claims Tribunal, taking into consideration future prospects of the Commander Rajbahadur Singh who was only 38 years old at the time of the accident, fixed the income in the sum of Rs. 18,000 and deducting 1/3rd for the personal expenses of the deceased, came to the conclusion that the loss of dependency was Rs. 12,000 per month, i.e., Rs. 1,44,000 per annum. To the said amount a multiplier of 15 was applied and awarding amounts under the conventional heads, a total sum of Rs. 21,80,000 was determined and it was directed that out of the said amount of Rs. 10,80,000 be paid to the widow Vidushi, Rs. 6,00,000 to the claimant Sumiran and Rs. 2,50,000 each to the parents. Direction for deposit of the amount was also made in para 7.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that it was not permissible for the Tribunal to have deducted Rs. 4,500 for provident fund and Rs. 1,000 towards general insurance.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent insurance company, per contra, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Asha v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. : (2008)2SCC774 , in support of his contention that it is only the amount which the deceased was last contributing to the family which can be treated to be the loss of dependency. Para 8 of the said judgment reads as extracted below:
(8) Lastly, it was submitted that the salary certificate shows that salary of the deceased was Rs. 8,632. It was submitted that the High Court was wrong in taking the salary to be Rs. 6,642. It was submitted that the High Court was wrong in deducting the allowances and amounts paid for LIC, society charges, HBA, etc. We are unable to accept this submission also. Claimants are entitled to be compensated for the loss suffered by them. The loss suffered by them is the amount which they would have been receiving at the time when the deceased was alive. There can be no doubt that the dependants would only be receiving the net amount less 1/3rd for his personal expenses. The High Court was, therefore, right in so holding.
In view of the above, we find that no interference is called for in respect of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
7. Learned Counsel for the respondent insurance company has pointed out that the insurance company has also filed a cross-objection challenging the quantum of compensation. Contention of the learned Counsel is that due permission was obtained under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act for defending the case on all grounds in addition to the grounds available under Section 149 (2) of the Act. We have gone through the cross-objection and we find that insofar as assessment of dependency is concerned, Tribunal has also taken into consideration the bright prospects of the deceased and determined the dependency on that basis. We are of the considered view that the amount awarded by Tribunal is just, reasonable and proper and does not call for either downward revision or upward revision. Under these circumstances, we find no life in the cross-objection filed by the company.
8. In the light of the above discussion, this appeal as also the cross-objection, both, are dismissed but with no order as to costs.