H.R. Panwar, J.
1. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 23.5.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of the appellant-claimants in each case, viz., in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 473/97 (MACT Cases No. 209/1995) and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 474/1997 (MACT Cases No 213/1994) and against the respondents. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation assessed and awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant-claimants (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants') have filed these two appeals seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused-the judgment and award impugned. I have also gone through the record of the Tribunal.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal fell in error in awarding low compensation. It was further contended that while computing the Income, the Tribunal deducted the amount payable as family pension from the monthly income of the deceased, which is not permissible under the law. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have supported the judgment of the learned Tribunal.
4. Deceased Chandraveer Singh (in CMA No. 473/1997) and Ram Lal (in CMA No. 474/1997) were police constables in the Rajasthan Police. Deceased Ram Lal was a Constable-Driver while Chandraveer Singh was a Field Constable. On 10.8.1995, Police Jeep No. RJ-03/C-0399 was carrying the police officials from Police Station, Khamera to Padoli in district Banswara for official duty. The said jeep was being driven by deceased Ram Lal. At about 1.15 a.m. in the night, when the said Jeep was plying near Majra Banasiya, a bus, bearing No RJB-9203 which was bring driven rashly and negligently by its driver respondent No. 3 Kalaji, came from the opposite direction and hit the police jeep. Due to to this accident, Ram Lal succumbed to the injuries instantaneously while Chandraveer Singh succumbed to the injuries during treatment at Banswara Hospital. The claimants, who are the legal representatives of deceased persons, filed the respective claim petitions for compensation, claiming compensation of Rs. 21,37,800/- and Rs. 22,52,000/- respectively.
5. Before the Tribunal, AW-1 Smt. Krishna Kanwar, the widow of deceased Chandraveer Singh, AW-2 Smt. Manju, widow of deceased Ram Lal and AW-3 Narpat Singh Constable, who was an eye witness of the occurrence, were examined. The claimants in Appeal No. 473/1997 produced a copy of the Jamabandi (record of rights) Ex. 14 and the salary certificate of deceased Chandraveer Singh Ex. 15, while the claimants in Appeal No. 474/1997 produced the salary certificate of deceased Ram Lal Ex. 16. According to the salary certificate Ex. 15,deceased Chandraveer Singh was earning Rs. 2670/- per month and deceased Ram Lal was earning Rs. 2606/- per month by salary vide Ex. 16. Both the deceased were working on the post of Police Constables and had a future promotional avenues. Future prospects of both the deceased persons were established by the evidence produced by the claimants. The Tribunal, while computing the dependency in case of deceased Chandraveer Singh, deducted a sum of Rs. 1200/- per month from the monthly dependency and in case of deceased Ram Lal, it was reduced by Rs. 780/- and considering their future prospects, the monthly dependency was determined at the rate of Rs. 1000/- in each case and, thus, the annual dependency was worked out to Rs. 12000/- in each case which was further multiplied by the multiplier of 15 years purchase-factor. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- for physical pain and mental agony etc. Thus, in all Rs. 2,00,000/- in each case were awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants in both the appeals.
6. It is settled proposition of law that in appeal, the quantum is interfered with when the compensation awarded is either inadequate or too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, in both these cases, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate and too low and, therefore, the same is required to be enhanced. Computation of compensation made by the Tribunal is against the well settled principle governing the assessment of compensation. Therefore, in both these cases, the proper computation of compensation is required to be made.
7. So for as deduction of family pension payable to the claimants is concerned, such deduction is not permissible under the law. The family pension received by the claimants is not the pecuniary gains as such, but it is acceleration of the pecuniary gain and it is the value of acceleration that has to be taken into account and not the benefit itself. In N. Sivammal v. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation, 1985 ACJ 75 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the amount of family pension cannot be reduced from the amount of compensation. In Prem Kanwar v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation 1988 ACJ 65 (Raj), this Court held that 'the intrinsic nature of benefits like the pension is that they are the deferred fruits of satisfactory service, industry, thrift, contributions and foresight of the employee. Equally these may be the necessary incidents of statutory service rules, employment contracts or beneficial legislation. To attribute these payments entirely to the fortuitous circumstances of the accident and the resultant death is untenable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the pension is being received by his claimants as a result of his death by accident.
8. In Mrs. Helen C. Rebello & Kors. Vs Maharahstra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. : AIR1998SC3191 , the Apex Court held as under:
Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certained to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only to the happening of the event, viz., accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No co-relation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured, if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums, in the case of death insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contracts for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on insured's death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly, any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no co-relation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as 'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction. When we seek the principle of loss of gain, it has to be on similar and same plane having nexus inter se between them and not to which there is no semblance of any co-relation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount has no co-relation to the compensation computed as against tortfeasor for his negligence on account of accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act, he receives without any contribution. As we have said the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual.
9. From the above settled legal proposition it is clear that there is a distinction between the 'benefits received on account of death of a person' and the 'benefits which are payable on his death.' So far as the benefits which are merely payable on the death of a person are concerned, they are the benefits which are independently available but are payable only after the death and no deduction can be made so far as the benefits which are payable on the death of a person is concerned, such as the family pension, gratuity, insurance amount etc.
10. In Daish v. Wauton, 1972 (1) All. ER 25, it was held that the payments which had come as a result of legislation or a contract or provided from beneficial benevolence and which came independently of any right of redress against such tortfeasor so that these solitary benefits conferred on the victim were enjoyed by the victim or the member of his family could never be deducted from the damages looking to the intrinsic nature of its benefits which on equitable consideration could never go for the benefit of the tortfeasor. The grant of family pension is a right which one inherits on the completion of qualifying service or on superannuation or on death.
11. In view of the above settled proposition of law, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal fell in error in deducting the amount of family pension payable to the claimants and such a finding of the Tribunal, deducting the family pension from the monthly income, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
12. From the unrebutted evidence of the claimants, it is established that at the time of the accidental death, deceased Chandraveer Singh was aged about 28 years and deceased Ram Lal was aged about 25 years. Both were the permanent employees of the Rajasthan Police on the post' of Constables. Their income on the relevant date of the accident from the salary was Rs. 2670/- and 2606/- respectively. Both had the future prospects and promotional avenues. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas : AIR1994SC1631 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the future prospects in advancement of life and career should be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand.
13. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra : (1996)4SCC362 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that according to the Table, i.e. Second Schedule to Section 163A and 163B in Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which came to be amended by Act No. 54 of 1991, the multiplier varies from 5 to 18 depending on the age group, to which the victim belonged. Thus, under this Chapter, the maximum multiplier can be 18 and not 16 as was held in Sushamma Thomas (Supra). Their Lordships of the Apex Court further observed that 'what we propose to emphasise is that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years' purchase-factor, which is an improvement over the earlier position that ordinarily it should not exceed 16 years' purchase-factor. In the age group between 26 to 30, the multiplier provided in Second Schedule to Section 163A and 163B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is 18 years' purchase-factor. Thus, in both these cases, the multiplier. In view of the above, the annual dependency in both the cases needs to be multiplied by a multiplier.
14. In SBCMA No. 473/97, deceased Chandraveer Singh was aged about 28 years. The Tribunal, after considering the future prospects of the deceased and deducting a sum of Rs. 1200/- per month, being paid as family pension to the claimants, determined the monthly dependency to be at Rs. 1000/-. In view of the above, the Tribunal fell in error in deducting the family pension payable to the claimants and, therefore, the amount of Rs. 1200/- needs to be added to the monthly dependency of Rs. 1000/- determined by the Tribunal. Thus, the monthly dependency in the instant case works out to Rs. 2200/- and as such the annual dependency comes to Rs. 26,400/- (2200 x 12). As per Second Schedule of Section 163A of the Act, the appropriate multiplier for age group of above 25 years but not exceeding 30 years, is 18 years' purchase-factor. Thus, the annual dependency is to be multiplied by 18 years' purchase-factor, which comes to Rs. 4,75,200/- (Rs. 26,400 x 18). The Tribunal awarded Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses etc. which appears to be just and proper. However, the Tribunal further awarded Rs. 15,000/- for loss of consortium, love and affection etc. Thus, the amount needs to be enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-. Thus, the total compensation of Rs. 5,00,200/-, rounded up to Rs. 5,00,000/- is awarded to the claimants.
15. In SBCMA No. 474/97, deceased Ram Lal was aged about 25 years. While taking future prospects into consideration, the Tribunal determined the monthly dependency at Rs. 1000/- after deducting a sum of Rs. 780/- per month on account of family pension payable to the claimants. As has been held above, the amount of family pension payable to the claimants cannot be deducted and, therefore, this amount is required to be added to the monthly dependency. Thus the monthly dependency works out to Rs. 1780/- and as such the annual dependency comes out to Rs. 21,360/-/- (1780 x 12). As per the Second Schedule to Section 163A of the Act, the appropriate multiplier in the case of victim of above 20 years but not exceeding 25 years, is 17. Thus, the total dependency comes out to Rs. 3,63,120 (21,360 x 17). The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- for loss of consortium, love and affection etc. Keeping in view that during pendency of the petition, the mother of the deceased had already expired and the remaining dependents are his widow, minor daughter and father of the deceased, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for loss of consortium, love and affection appears to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the total compensation works out to Rs. 3,83,120/-, i.e. rounded upto Rs. 3,83,000/-.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the appeals are allowed. The compensation in SBCMA No. 473/97 is enhanced to Rs. 5,00,00/- and in SBCMA No. 474/97 is enhanced to Rs. 3,83,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim application till realisation.
17. In Appeal No. 473/97, out of Rs. 5,00,000/-, claimant Krishna Kanwar shall be paid Rs. 2,00,000/- and interest thereon. Claimants No. 2, 3 and 4, viz, Ku. Bhanwar Kunwar, Ku. Minakshi and Jagpal Singh, shall be paid Rs. 1,00,000/- each and interest thereon. Claimants No. 2, 3 and 4 are minor, therefore, the amount payable to them shall be deposited in a fixed deposit account of a nationalised bank at the first instance for a period of five years with the condition for further renewal till they attain majority.
18. In appeal No. 474/97, out of total compensation of Rs. 3,83,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be paid to appellant-claimant Smt. Manju, Rs. 1,50,000/- to claimant Ku. Priyanka and Rs. 1,33,000/- shall be paid to claimant Punja S/o Thavana alongwith interest thereon. The amount payable to claimants Smt. Manju and Punja shall be deposited in a fixed deposit account of a nationalised bank for a period of five years at the first instance and the amount payable to Ku. Priyanka shall be deposited in a fixed deposit account of a nationalised bank for a period of seven years at the first instance with the condition of further renewal till she attains the majority. However, claimants Smt. Manju and Punja shall be paid quarterly interest accrued on the fixed deposit account. The amount deposited shall not be permitted to be pledged or withdrawn pre-maturely without the permission of the Tribunal.
19. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.