High Court · 2012

The claimant in her evidence mentioned that her husband would have got p romotion to the higher post i.e. to the post of Executive Engineer, is and one o f the colleague of her husband was promoted as Executive Engineer. In course of argument learned counsel for the claimant pointed out that the court should take into account the pecuniary loss caused to the dependents by the death of the de ceased and in support of his contention he referred the decision of the honourab le Supreme Court laid down held in the case reported in (2002) 6 Supreme Court c ases 306 wherein it was held that determination of appropriate multiplier, depen dents upon the fact and circumstances of the particular case including the age o f the dependants not only the existing salary but also additional some payable t o the deceased depending upon the nature of his job, chances of promotion, life expectancy -- learned counsel for the claimant also referred the decision of th e case reported in AIR 1979 Punjab & Haryana 50. Considering the nature of job a nd the future expectation of life as well as the promotional avenues of the dece ased as revealed in the evidence I find it wise to award an amount of Rs.2,00,00 0/- for future amenities and expectation of life of the deceased. Further an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded is funeral expenses. Therefore the total amount of compensation comes to - For loss of dependency - Rs.14,49,360/- For los of consortium - Rs. 5,000/- For future expectation (1) (2) (3) Of life promotional Avenue etc. - Rs.2,00,000/- (4) For funeral expenses - Rs. 10,000/- ___________________________ Total Rs. 16,64,400/- (Rupees sixteen lakh sixty four thousand & four hundred). From the above discussion it is held that the claimant is entitled to co mpensation amounting to Rs.16,64,400/-(Rupees sixteen lakh sixty four thousand & four hundred) on account of death of her husband late Hobibur Rahman in the ve hicular accident took place on 15/4/99 at 3.00 P.M. at Ghulaguri on N.H.37 under Sibsagar P.S. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle No.AS- 01F-8683, and the O.P. No.3 being the insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the claimant along with interest. Sd/- 20.12.05 Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Guwahati, O R D E R In view of the above judgment the claim petition against the O.P. No.3 is allowe d on contest, but against the remaining O.Ps dismissed, with direction to the O. P. No.3 to pay compensation amounting to Rs.16,64,400/-(Rupees sixteen lakh sixt y four thousand & four hundred) along with interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of f iling the petition till full satisfaction of the award. (cid:29)

5. It is evident from the impugned judgment dated 20.12.2005 that t he deceased was an Assistant Executive Engineer in the O.N.G.C Ltd. and his gros s pay was Rs.29,513/-. From that amount the following deductions were used to be made: Income Tax Professional Tax LIC CPF - Rs.6,480/- - Rs. 185/- - Rs.2789/- - Rs.3647.60P

6. The Tribunal had deducted all those sum for arriving at the net income of the deceased. But the deduction as used to be made from the salary o f the deceased on account of LIC premium or contribution to the contributory pro vident fund cannot be deducted to be arrived at the net income of the deceasaed. As such the net income of the deceased after deduction would be Rs.22,910/-. The Tribunal has assessed loss of future prospect at Rs.2,00,000/-. Instead of that sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, 30% of the income is required to be added on that acc ount. 30% comes at Rs.6873/-. If the said amount is added to the net income of Rs.22901/-, it comes to Rs.29,783/-. Thus the annual income can be arrived at Rs.3,57,396. Therefrom, a deduction of 1/3rd has to be made for personal expens es of the deceased. Thus, it comes to Rs.2,38,262/- (Rs.3,57,396/- - Rs.1,19, 152). The said income be now multiplied by the multiplier as chosen by the Trib unal. Even though on consideration of the age of the deceased the multiplier ha s been chosen on the lower side, but considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to disturb the multiplier as chosen by the Tribunal as 11. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes at Rs.26,20,904/-. With the said amount a sum of Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses and another sum o f Rs.10,000/- as loss of consortium for the claimant be added. Therefore, the t otal compensation comes to Rs.26,35,904/-. The said amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of p ayment. 7. With this modification in the impugned judgment and award dated 20.12.2005 as passed in MAC APP No. 75 of 2006, as filed by the claimant, the ap peal is allowed to the extent as indicated above. As a corollary to this findin g, MAC APP No. 137 of 2006 filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is hereby d ismissed. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., insurer of the offending vehicle, i s directed to deposit the entire awarded compensation with interest @ 6% per ann um from the date of filing of the claim till the day of payment in the Tribunal within a period of two months after adjusting the amount whatsoever has been pai d in the meantime. There shall be no order as to costs in the facts and circumst ances of the case. Lower Court Record, if received, be returned forthwith.