Judgment

J.B.PARDIWALA

( 1. ) THE present appeal is at the instance of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") in a proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and is directed against an award dated 14th March 2001 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nadiad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.659 of 1990, thereby disposing of the said proceeding by awarding a sum of Rs.22,31,452=00 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum in favour of the three claimants i.e. wife of the deceased, minor daughter of the deceased and mother of the deceased. THE Corporation was directed to pay the said amount in a manner described in the award. Being dissatisfied, the appellant - Corporation has come up with the present appeal.

( 2. ) ACCORDING to the claimants, on 4th April 1990 at about 11:00 a.m., the victim met with an accident involving the offending vehicle resulting in his death. The deceased Major Satish Sehgal along with his wife was travelling from Vadodara to Ahmedabad in a military jeep bearing registration No.86-B-37990-M, which was being driven by one Chandubhai Mohanbhai. At about 11.00 a.m. near village Hariyala, the State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No.GQE-9237 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the jeep, as a result of which deceased Major Satish Sehgal was thrown out from the jeep and fell on the road, getting crushed under the wheel of a truck bearing registration No.DIL-2180 which was following the jeep in which the deceased was travelling with his wife. The widow of the deceased and the driver of the jeep also sustained injuries in the form of fractures etc.

( 3. ) IT appears from the record of the case that initially MACP No.659 of 1990 was filed claiming compensation of Rs.20,50,000=00 but, later on, by an amendment, the claim amount was enhanced to Rs.50 lac. In the claim petition, the income of the deceased was shown at Rs. 10,000=00 per month including the allowances and amenities provided to the deceased. At the time of the accident, deceased was 38 years of age.

( 4. ) THERE is no dispute about the involvement of the vehicle in the accident resulting in the death of the victim and the fact that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle concerned, the death occurred. The only dispute raised in this appeal is as regards the quantum of compensation.

( 5. ) IT would be expedient for better adjudication of the appeal to look into the reasonings assigned by the Tribunal in passing an award for the sum of Rs.22,31,452=00. The record reveals that deceased Satish Sehgal was of the rank of Major in the military. The last pay drawn certificate of the deceased is at Exh.43 and as per the said certificate, total salary including all allowances at the time of death of the victim was Rs.5,900=00 per month. The Tribunal took the view considering promising future of the deceased and his qualifications that if victim would not have died in the accident, he could have reached to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and if he would have retired as a Lieutenant Colonel, his basic pay would have been Rs.4,800=00 and the total salary would have been Rs.12,733=00 per month. For determining this amount, the Tribunal relied upon the letter of a Major indicating that if Mr.Satish Sehgal would not have died in the accident, he would have been Lieutenant Colonel by now and his basic pay would have been Rs.13,500=00 plus other allowances. On this basis, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the income be assessed at Rs.21,788=00. The Tribunal thought fit to deduct Rs.200=00 towards kit allowances. Therefore, after deducting Rs.200=00, monthly salary was assessed at Rs.21,588=00. The Tribunal thereafter taking into consideration that at the relevant point of time the victim