The main legal point established is the method for determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, considering the deceased's income, future prospects, and loss of consortium and affection.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

( 1 ) YUDHVIR Singh Ahluwalia and Nitya ahluwalia are the husband and daughter respectively of late Geeta Ahluwalia.

( 2 ) ON 24. 4. 1987, late Geeta Ahluwalia was waiting for a bus at Jantar Mantar when she was hit by bus No. DEP 2512, driven by respondent No. 2. The bus was "owned by respondent No. 1. As a result of the injuries sustained, she died.

( 3 ) THE appellants filed a petition under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 9,40,000 on account of death of geeta Ahluwalia.

( 4 ) BY an award dated 17. 12. 1991, it was held that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the respondent No. 2. Compensation was assessed in the sum of Rs. 2,30,472. Same was held to be payable with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till date of realisation. Compensation was apportioned as under: (a) Appellant No. 1 : Rs. 1,00,000 (b) Appellant No. 2 : Rs. 1,30,472

( 5 ) WHILE determining compensation, the Tribunal held that evidence on record established that the deceased was engaged as a stenographer with Amrind Publishing co. Pvt. Ltd. and was earning Rs. 1,600 per month. Deducting one-third as the personal expenses of the deceased, dependency was assessed at Rs. 1,067. Treating the age of the deceased at 37 years and date of retirement at 55 years, multiplier of 18 was applied. Rs. 1,067 x 12 x 18 gives the figure of Rs. 2,30,472 being the compensation.

( 6 ) MR. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellants contends that while passing the award and in determining the compensation, the Tribunal ignored the prospects of future increase in salary of the deceased. Besides, learned counsel contended that nothing has been paid on account of loss of consortium to appellant No. 1 and loss of mother s love and affection to appellant no. 2. Learned counsel drew my attention to C. M. No. 1068 of 2000 which was filed under Order 41, rule 33 of the Code of civil Procedure, urging the court to take on record annexure A to the said C. M. and consider the same while disposing of the appeal.

( 7 ) AS per annexure A to C. M. No. 1068 of 2000, which is a certificate issued by the employer of the deceased, had the deceased continued to work with the organization, she would have earned a salary of rs. 7,000 per month as on 7. 7. 2000.

( 8 ) LEARNED counsel drew my attention to order dated 28. 2. 2001 wherein it stands directed that C. M. No. 1068 of 2000 would be considered along with the main appeal.

( 9 ) IN the judgment reported as General manager, Kerala State Road Transport corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), in a case involving a motor vehicle where the deceased was aged 39 years earning Rs. 1,032 p. m. , the Hon ble Apex court determined the compensation to the family consisting of the parents, widow and children of the deceased as under:

(I) Future prospects of advancement in life and career resulting in increased income, on a safe basis could be assumed to be resulting in doubling of the income. The monthly income was thus treated at Rs. 2,000. (ii) Deductions on account of personal expenses, in the absence of evidence, one-third of the income was held to be sound deduction. On this account rs. 600 was deducted. (iii) The loss of dependency was thus arrived at Rs. 1,400 p. m. (iv) Annual loss of dependency was thus Rs. 1,400 x 12 = Rs. 16,800 (treated as Rs. 17,000 ). (v) Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 12 was applied. Total compensation was thus worked out to Rs. 17. 000 x 12 = Rs. 2. 04. 000. (vi) Loss of consortium was taken at rs. 15,000. (vii) The total compensation was worked out to Rs. 2,25,000 as a fair, just and reasonable compenstion.

( 10 ) IN the judgment reported as Sarla dixit v. Balwant Yadav, 1996 ACJ 581 (SC), the deceased aged 27 years died in an accident on 16. 3. 1975. He was survived by his widow and minor daughter. The compensation worked out was as under:

(I) Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document