The main legal point established is that the insurance company is liable to pay the entire compensation amount, and the principles from Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and the decisions in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagwati Devi were applied to determine the just and fair compensation.

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants against an award dated 28.5.1994 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 5,40,000 as compensation to the claimants and held that respondent Nos. 1 and 3, i.e., M.M. Public School, owner of Matador No. DEP 3723 and its driver Ram Akbal were liable to pay the amount. The claimants have sought enhancement in the compensation amount and the award is assailed also on the ground that insurance company was liable to pay the damages.

2. Cross-objections were preferred by respondent No. 3, i.e., M.M. Public School, submitting that the insurance company alone was liable to pay the entire compensation amount and not the driver and owner of Matador since the vehicle was duly insured by the owner with the insurance company. However, the respondents were proceeded ex parte by the Tribunal as the advocate engaged by the respondents failed to discharge his duty and did not bring it to the knowledge of the Tribunal that the vehicle was duly insured. It was submitted that the Tribunal has exonerated insurance company on the ground that the insurance company had denied the insurance. However, the insurance company had admitted that the vehicle was insured but taken a false stand that the vehicle was not insured at the time of accident. Therefore, Tribunal could not have exonerated the insurance company and should have held the insurance company liable to make the payment. The objector has relied upon the policy obtained by it in favour of the vehicle valid from 20.5.1985 to 19.5.1986 and the date of accident in this case was 20.5.1985.

3. The insurance company contested the appeal and cross-objections. It is not denied by the insurance company that the policy relied upon by the cross-objector was issued by it. The plea taken is that the policy was taken on 20.5.1985 after the accident had happened and the insurance company was, therefore, not liable.

4. While computing the compensation payable to the claimants, the Tribunal had taken the age of the deceased as 30 years and his income as Rs. 2,500 per month. This was the age given in the claim petition itself and the income was proved by the father and widow of the deceased, who appeared in the witness-box as PWs and stated that income of Mahesh Kumar was Rs. 2,500 per month. Claimants in this case were widow, minor daughter and minor son of the deceased and mother and father of the deceased. Father in his testimony clearly stated that he was not dependent on his son. Looking at this, the Tribunal considered that the deceased was contributing Rs. 1,500 per month for the maintenance of the family. Future prospects and dependency were considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000 for the purpose of computing damages. A multiplier of 15 was used and thus a sum of Rs. 5,40,000 was awarded as damages/compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that in terms of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), deduction towards personal expenses should have been 1/4th instead of 1/3rd as taken by the Tribunal and a multiplier of 17 should have been used and the court should have also granted non-pecuniary benefits.

6. I consider that the Tribunal awarded just and fair compensation to the claimants. If we apply parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), even then the deduction for personal expenses will have to be 1/3rd and not 1/4th. Father of deceased admitted that he was not dependent on his son, thus only four persons were dependent on the deceased. Thus, 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses was justified. In terms of Sarla Verma's case (supra), future prospects would have 50 per cent of the income at the time of death. Thus for computing compensation instead of Rs. 3,000 per month, the Tribunal should have taken the income of the deceased as Rs. 2,500 per month. Even if a