Gurdish Kaur and Another vs Darshan Singh and Others

A.N. Jindal, J.—This appeal for enhancement is directed against the award dated 04.12.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Bathinda, whereby, on account of death of Khushdeep Singh, aged about 32 years, in a motor vehicle accident, the claimants were

awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.6,20,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum. The respondents have not filed any appeal against the

award, thus, it appears, that they have neither challenged the negligence of the respondent No.1 nor their liability.

As regards the quantum of compensation, it transpires from the record that Khushdeep Singh was posted as Clerk in the Housefed and was

drawing salary of Rs.7918/- per month. Pay slip (Ex.P1) produced on the record reveals that the basic salary of the deceased was Rs.6390/- and

his gross salary was Rs.7918/- per month. However, it has been urged that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the salary of the deceased as

Rs.5400/- per month, no reasons have been assigned by the Tribunal for considering the salary of the deceased on the lower side. The affidavit

tendered by Gurdeep Kaur, one of the claimants, also reveals that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.7918/- per month. The Apex Court in

case New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bimla Devi and Others, has observed as under:-

The last argument of learned counsel is equally devoid of merit wherein it is submitted that the gross income, which includes the element of GPF

should not have been taken as the case for working out the dependency. The argument is liable to be rejected out rightly because the concept of

net income is to work out that income which show that the dependency and not the income which is not worked for the purposes of income tax,

etc. The element of GPF amounting to Rs.4,000/- and the amount of Rs.12,500/- contributed to GPF advance in instalments would necessarily be

construed as income for the purpose of computing the dependency. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon''ble

Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), where the gross

income has been taken to be the basis. If we look at the future prospective in respect of enhancement of income of the deceased then his salary

would go further up before his retirement. The Tribunal has not worked out the income keeping in view the prospective increase in the salary of the

victim as has been laid down in number of cases including Susamma Thomas''s case (supra). We also do not propose to undertake any such

exercise because the award as it is being upheld which has been propounded on the basis of gross income, multiplier and rate of interest of 7-1/2

percent per annum. Therefore, the last submission of the learned counsel also fails and the same is rejected.

In view of the aforesaid judgment, the gross salary of the deceased is to be taken into consideration to assess the dependency of the deceased.

In this case, there are two dependents, therefore, a deduction of 1/3rd will have to be made out of the salary which the deceased has been

spending upon himself. Thus, his dependency comes to Rs.5278/- per month i.e. Rs.63,336/- per annum. As per Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi

Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009(3) RCR(Civil) 77, at the age of 32 years, the multiplier of 16 would be appropriate to be applied in this

case. As such, while calculating, the compensation amount comes to Rs.10,13,376/-. In addition to it, the Tribunal has already awarded

Rs.15,200/- as expenses incurred by the claimants on the treatment.

Resultantly, this appeal is partly allowed. Now the claimants would be entitled to receive Rs.10,28,576/- as compensation along with interest @

6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.