Deductions from the deceased's salary towards insurance, pensionary benefits, or gratuity are not permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act. The court also applied the multiplier of 18 in assessing the compensation and apportioned the compensation in the ratio of 50% to the appellant-claimant and 50% to the respondent nos.2 & 3.

JUDGMENT

V.L. Achliya, J. - Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 9.12.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.376/2007, the appellant - claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents. Perused the record and proceedings.

3. Before adverting to deal with the submissions advanced, it is useful to refer few facts leading to fling of claim petition. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties are referred as they are described in the impugned judgment.

4. The appellant - claimant had fled petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of accidental death of her husband Arun Ramdas Memane who died in motor vehicle accident which had taken place on 2.6.2007 at about 4-00 p.m. on Nagar-Pune road opposite Kamargaon Bus Stand. The claimant has approached with a case that at the time of accident, the appellant - claimant and the deceased were proceeding from Pune towards Nagar on their motorcycle bearing registration No.MH16-P-3680. The deceased was driving the motorcycle and the appellant - claimant was a pillion rider. While they were near Kamargaon Shivar, the ofending vehicle i.e. the S.T. Bus bearing registration No.MH-20-D-7720 owned by the respondent no.1 which was coming from Pune and proceeding towards Nagar gave dash to motorcycle. Due to dash given, the deceased sustained multiple injuries including injury to head. The appellant - claimant also sustained injury in said accident. It is contended that the accident occurred due to sole negligence and rash & negligent driving on the part of driver of the S.T. Bus. The deceased was shifted to Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar, He succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident. The appellant was admitted to Kamalnayan Hospital at Tarakpur, Ahmednagar.

5. The appellant has claimed that at the time of accident, the deceased was 24 years of age and serving in Military (Infantry) and posted at Gwalior as a Sipoy. He was receiving Rs.10,000/- per month as salary. The appellant - claimant has claimed that the deceased was getting free meal and residential facilities at the place of his posting. On account of accidental death, the claimant has worked out the claim as Rs.15,30,000/-. However, restricted the claim for the purpose of petition and Court fees to Rs.10,00,000/-.

6. The respondent no.1 - MSRTC contested the claim with contention that the accident solely occurred due to fault on the part of the deceased who was driving the motorcycle in an excessive and unmanageable speed. While overtaking the Truck ahead of him, the deceased could not control his motorcycle and gave dash to the driver side bumper of the Bus and sustained injuries. The respondent no.1 denied the case as pleaded about age, occupation and income of the deceased to claim compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

7. The respondent nos.2 & 3 - the father and mother of the deceased, appeared in the matter and fled their written statement. They have claimed that the appellant has fled the petition in gross suppression of true facts and tried to mislead the Court. The appellant - claimant has shown her residential address as her matrimonial house at village Raytale Tq.Parner Dist.Ahmednagar though she is residing at her parental place at Sonewadi Tq. & Dist.Ahmednagar. In order to grab the entire amount of compensation, the appellant has deliberately shown her address as that of her matrimonial place of residence. In brief, the respondent nos.2 & 3 have approached with a case that the deceased was their only son. The deceased married with the appellant about one month prior to the accident. After the accident, the entire expenditure of her treatment was borne by them. Instead of taking care of respondent nos.2 & 3, the appellant - claimant left the matrimonial house and residing with her parents. Her parents are trying to perform her marriag