Pannavati vs Krishnakant Sahu And Ors

P. Sam Koshy, J

The present is a claimants' appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the

3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, vide its award dated 27.10.2010, in Claim Case No. 24/2010.

Vide the impugned award, the learned Tribunal, in a death case, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has awarded a compensation of

Rs.9,87,184/- to the claimants with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim application.

Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants assailing the award submits that the Tribunal in the instant case has not taken the income of the

deceased properly while quantifying the compensation. She further submits that the deceased in the instant case was a permanent employee of the

Central public sector undertaking, South Eastern Coalfields Limited. She further draws the attention of this Court to Exhibits A-8 to A-10 stating that

the gross monthly income of the deceased has been shown as Rs. 11,170/- which included the deductions towards the provident fund and contributions

towards Life Insurance and submits that the Tribunal has only assessed the income at Rs.6786/- for the purpose of calculating the compensation. It

was further contended that the deceased in the instant case since was aged about 29 years at the time of accident, the claimants would also be

entitled for 50% of his income towards future prospects. Likewise, the deduction made towards the personal expenses also should be 1/4th instead of

1/3rd as has been done by the Tribunal. She further submits that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also on the lower side and

therefore it deserves to be enhanced suitably. She thus prayed for a suitable enhancement of the amount of compensation accordingly.

Learned counsel for respondent no.3-insurance company however opposing the appeal submits that the award in the instant case seems to be just

and reasonable and it does not warrant any interference and thus prayed for the rejection of the appeal as the finding is based on the evidence which

have come on record.

Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, undisputedly, the deceased in the instant case was a permanent

employee of South Eastern Coalfields Limited and was drawing a gross salary of Rs. 11,170/- per month. Considering the date of accident and the age

of the deceased, there would had been a considerable increase in the income of the deceased in due course of time. From the documents, Exhibits A-

8 to A-10, it reflects that the gross income includes the deductions made towards the provident fund as also the contribution towards the life insurance

by the employer. Both these deductions are also part of the wages for all practical purposes and the benefits arising out of these two deductions would

had been payable to the deceased on his superannuation. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court assesses the monthly

income of the deceased at Rs.11,170/- and proceeds to quantify the compensation accordingly.

Keeping in view a recent Larger Bench's decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay

Sethi & Others SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017, the claimants would also be entiteld for 50% of income towards future

prospects.

Accordingly, accepting Rs.11,170/- as the monthly income of the deceased, the yearly income comes to Rs.1,34,040/- to which if 50%, i.e.,

Rs.67,020/- is added towards future prospects, the amount would come to Rs.2,01,060/- of which if 1/4th, i.e., Rs.50,265/-, is deducted towards the

personal expenses (instead of 1/3rd), the amount would come to Rs.1,50,795/- which if multiplied applying the multiplier of 17, instead of 18, the

amount would reach to Rs.25,63,515/- which is the loss of dependency which the claimants are entitled for, instead of Rs.9,77,184/- which the Tribunal

has assessed and it is ordered accordingly.

In addition, again Keeping in view the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are also entitled for a lump sum compensation of Rs.70,000/-

under conventional heads, instead of what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

It is accordingly ordered that the claimants shall be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.26,33,515/- instead of Rs.9,87,184/- which the Tribunal

has awarded, and the said enhanced amount shall also carry the interest at the same rate as has been fixed by the Tribunal.

The appeal stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.