Calculation of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act should consider all perks and benefits beneficial to the deceased's family, and loss of consortium and love and affection should be computed in accordance with legal precedents.

Deepa Sharma, J. (Oral)

1. Vide this appeal, the LRs of deceased Kashmir Singh has challenged the award dated 8th July, 2010 by which a compensation of a sum of Rs.28,26,784/- had been awarded. The notice of this appeal was issued to respondents No. 1 but he did not contest the present appeal. The respondent No. 2 had expired and his LRs were brought on record but none has appeared on their behalf. The appeal is contested only by respondent No. 3, the Insurance company.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 9th May, 2007 at about 4 a.m., Sh. Kashmir Singh was riding as a pillion rider on a Motor Cycle No. DL4SZ6989 (Hero Honda) being driven by his colleague Sh. Subash Chand Sharma. At the time of accident, they were coming back from their office and when they reached near Akshardham Mandir, Pandav Nagar, Delhi, they stopped their Motorcycle at one side of the road. One truck bearing No. HR-38 B- 2344 driven by respondent No. 1 hit their vehicle from behind resulting into suffering fatal injuries. The said truck was being driven at a very high speed at that time.

3. There is no contest to the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. HR-38 B- 2344 driven by respondent No. 1. The findings of the Tribunal on this issue thus becomes final.

4. Sh. Kashmir Singh suffered fatal injuries and died in this accident at GTB Hospital on the very same day. An FIR No. 248/2007 under Sections 279/337/304 A IPC was registered. A claim under Section 140 & 166 Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was filed by the legal representatives of deceased Sh. Kashmir Singh which was registered as Suit No. 409/2007.

5. The award has been assailed by the claimants on two grounds. Firstly that the Tribunal has wrongly calculated the income of the deceased. It is contended that the Tribunal has not added the GPF, Gratuity and other benefits which the deceased was getting along with his salary. Reliance is placed on National Insurance Company v. Indra Srivastava and ors. (2007 (14) SCALE) Shyamwati Sharma and others v. Karan Singh and others (2010 ACJ 1968). Secondly, the Tribunal has not computed the loss of consortium and love and affection as per law laid down in case titled as Rajesh and others V. Rajbir Singh & Ors (2013 (6) SCALE).

6. The appeal is contested only by the Insurance Company/respondent No. 4. The Insurance Company has alleged that the award has been correctly passed after taking into consideration all the relevant factors.

7. I have carefully perused the trial court record and the impugned award dated 8th July, 2010.

8. In this case there is no challenge to the fact that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. The finding on this count has thus attained finality.

9. The first contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal has taken the amount of Rs.19,263.51 paise as the gross salary whereas the salary slip which is Ex.PW3/D shows the other benefits which the deceased was drawing as part of his salary. This includes Provident Fund share, LTA, Gratuity, and P.L. encashment. It is argued that these benefits were for the benefits of dependents of the deceased and ought to have been added and the gross salary should have been taken as Rs.23,668.51 paise.

10. It is a settled law that while calculating the income of the deceased for the purpose of calculation of loss of dependency, the income includes all the perks and benefits which were benefitial to the family of the deceased. The Learned Tribunal while calculating income for the purpose of calculation of loss of dependency has not added the amount of GPF and Gratuity. In the case National Insurance Company v. Indra Srivastava and ors.(2007 (14) SCALE) and also in the case Shyamwati Sharma and others v. Karan Singh and others (2010 ACJ 1968), the Apex court has clearly held that the term " income” include other perks which are beneficial to the entire family and the deductions towards prov