SANJIV KHANNA, J, J.

( 1 ) THE present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) has been filed by the National insurance Company Limited, the appellant, against the award dated 16th April, 2004 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal in Claim Petition/suit no. 117/2003 titled Smt. Pooja and others versus Gulfam and others.

( 2 ) BY the impugned award the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal had decided some other claim petitions also, however, I am not concerned with them. It may also be relevant to state here that the Oriental Insurance Company Limited-the respondent No. 9 in the present appeal has also filed cross- objections. This order will dispose of the appeal and the cross-objections of the respondent no. 9.

( 3 ) IT is admitted case of the parties that on 24th October, 1999 at about 2. 30 a. m, the deceased-Mr. Sarvesh Kumar along with others was travelling in a tata Sumo bearing Registration No. DL 4cj-0261 and was coming to Delhi from gopalganj in Bihar. The said Tata Sumo met with an accident with a truck bearing registration No. UP 15 A-2741. The respondent nos. 1-6 in the present appeal are the dependants of the deceased-Mr. Sarvesh Kumar. The respondent nos. 7,8,10 and 11 are the driver and the owner of the TATA Sumo and the driver and the owner of the truck, respectively.

( 4 ) THE learned Motor Accidents Claim Court after examining the evidence and the material on record came to the conclusion that the said accident was caused due to negligence of the drivers of the two vehicles and accordingly the said two drivers, the owners of the two vehicles and the insurance companies, namely, the appellant and the respondent No. 9, were jointly and severally made liable to pay compensation.

( 5 ) ON the question of compensation, learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal came to the conclusion that no evidence or material was produced by the respondent nos. 1-6 to show and prove the monthly income of the deceased, though it was stated that he was running an electronic goods shop and it was claimed that he used to earn Rs. 5000. 00 to 6000. 00 per month. In that view of the matter, the minimum wages payable in Delhi to an unskilled worker in the year 1999 of Rs. 2348/- per month was taken as the basis for computing the loss of dependency. Ld. Tribunal further held that future increase in earnings should also be taken into consideration and no deduction should be made towards personal expenditure and expenses. Multiplier of 18 was applied and Rs. 7,60,752/- was awarded on account of loss of dependency and in addition Rs. 40,000. 00 was awarded towards non pecuniary damages. In all compensation of Rs. 8,00,752. 00 was awarded.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant and the respondent No. 9 submitted that learned Tribunal had erred in holding that no deduction should be made towards personal expenses, while calculating loss of dependency. It was submitted that at least 1/3rd of the total amount should have be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. It was also submitted that the learned Motor accidents Claim Tribunal had erred in doubling the minimum wages and then taking the average of the two, for computing the loss of dependency as there was no evidence or material about the bright future prospects or possibility of increase in the income of the deceased. It was submitted that the deceased did not have a stable job. Objection was also raised to the multiplier of 18 applied by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent No. 9 relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla dixit and another versus Balwant Yadav and others reported in AIR 1996 SC 1274 and General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation verus Susamma Thomas and others reported in (1994) 2 SCC 176.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1-6, however, submitted that the compensation granted was justified

Click Here to Read the rest of this document