IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper calculation of compensation in motor accident claims, including the deceased's income, loss of dependency, future prospects, and loss of consortium.

JUDGMENT

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. These appeals have been filed challenging the Award dated 05.02.2019 (hereinafter referred to as `Impugned Award') passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-02, (North-District) Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `Tribunal') in MAC Petition No.6109/2016 (Old MAC Petition No. 74/2016) titled as Smt. Sonia & Ors. v. Sh. Satish Kumar & Ors..

2. The above Claim Petition was registered on the Detailed Accident Report (in short, `DAR') filed by the police corresponding to the investigation carried out in FIR No. 1484/15 under Sections 279/304A Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at PS Narela.

3. As per the DAR, on 21.11.2015, the deceased-Arun Kumar was going on his motorcycle and at about 1:15 pm, when he reached at Singhu Border Road in front of the Deepak Apartments, Narela, Delhi, one Maruti Van bearing registration no. HR-55-L-6792 (hereinafter referred to as the `Offending Vehicle'), which was being driven at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came and hit his motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the deceased fell from his motorcycle and he and his motorcycle came under the Offending Vehicle. They were dragged by the Offending Vehicle for a considerable distance. The deceased was rushed to the SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi, where he was medically examined and was declared as brought dead.

4. The learned Tribunal, by way of the Impugned Award, has held that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in the road accident due to the Offending Vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.69,56,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of the filing of the petition, that is 28.01.2016, till the date of its realization, in favour of the Legal Representatives of the deceased.

CHALLENGE OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY:

5. As far as the Insurance Company is concerned, it challenges the Impugned Award on the following grounds:

(a) that the learned Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.38,996/- per month. The learned counsel for the insurance company submits that from the salary slip of the deceased (Ex.PW?), produced before the learned Tribunal, it would be evident that apart from the Basic Pay and the Grade Pay, the deceased was also drawing Transport Allowance of Rs.3504/-, Washing Allowance of Rs.90/-, Metro Pass Allowance of Rs.180/-, Ration Money of Rs.2,961/-, and Conveyance Allowance of Rs.90/-. He submits that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kalpanaraj and Ors. v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn., (2015) 2 SCC 764; and of this Court in Asha Devi & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7114, the above allowances should have been deducted from the income of the deceased for the purposes of determining the loss of dependency, as these allowances were personal to the deceased.

(b) the learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in adding the House Rent Allowance to the income of the deceased, which admittedly was not being paid to the deceased at the time of the accident.

(c) the learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submits that the learned Tribunal has also erred in considering the income of the deceased for 13 months instead of for 12 months for determination of the loss of dependency.

(d) the learned counsel for the insurance company further submits that the parents of the deceased were not living with the deceased and, therefore, cannot be considered as dependants on the deceased. He submits that only the widow and the children of the deceased were dependant on him, and a deduction of 1/3rd should have been made towards his personal expenses instead of 1/4th as has been done by the learned Tribunal.

(e) the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that as the deceased was aged 40 years and 9 months as on the date of the accident, multiplier of 14 should have been adopted in t