IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation for loss of dependency must not deduct pension or personal expenses; future prospects should be included, with the correct multiplier applied.

JUDGMENT :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award rendered in MACP No.473 of 2000 dated 23/03/2009 by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (FTC-3) Gandhidham Kachchh, the appellant – org. claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act whereby the tribunal partly allowed the claim to the tune of Rs. 3,32,500/- with 7.5% interest and cost.

2. The brief fact of the present appeal is such that the husband of the appellant namely Pachan Bhoja Maheshwari (herein called as deceased) on 17/11/2000 after completion of his duty hours, he was returning from Kandla by travelling in Matador No. GJ-7-V-5678 by paying Rs. 5/- as rent at that time the driver of the Truck No. GJ-12-T-7408 came by driving his truck rashly, negligently, with excessive speed and dashed the Matador of the deceased. It is submitted that due to this accident the deceased sustain serious injuries admitted in the Hospital and during the treatment he was died due to fatal injuries.

2.1 The claimant prayed for the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- alongwith interest and cost under Section 166 of the MV Act for the death of her husband against the present respondent by way of filing a claim petition. After looking the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence made by both the sides namely appellant and respondents and after full- fledged trial, the learned tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,32,500/- with 7.5% interest and cost.

3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Modi appearing for the claimant would submit that at the time of road accident the deceased was serving with Kandala Port Trust and drawing salary of Rs.9,200/-. He would submit that tribunal though has taken the salary slip of the deceased for the consideration but reduced the amount of pension received by the claimant being widow of the deceased from calculating the loss of future dependency, which led to committing error in computing just compensation. He would further submit that despite the deceased was married, tribunal deducted one-half of the income towards the personal and pocket expenses instead of one-third. He would further submit that multiplier of 14 should be applied as the deceased was 43 years old at the time of road accident. He would further submit that tribunal has granted compensation on lower side under the non-pecuniary head as well, which should be as per the decision in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., [(2017) 16 SCC 680].

4.1 For the submission of pension amount received by the widow which should not be deducted while calculating the loss of dependency, learned advocate Mr.Modi placed reliance upon the decision in case of Vimal Kanwar Versus Kishore Dan [2013 (7) SCC 476].

4.2 In all it is submitted that learned tribunal has assessed and granted compensation less than just and fair compensation. Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr.Modi would submit to allow the appeal and to enhance the amount of compensation.

5. Per contra, learned advocates appearing for both the insurance companies have made two fold submissions. Firstly, they would submit that tribunal committed error in granting 50% for the prospective income which ought to have granted as per decision of Pranay Sethi (supra) and secondly since the claimant is the only dependent of the deceased the tribunal has rightly deducted one-half amount towards the personal and pocket expenses. Upon above submission, they would submit to pass necessary order.

6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and examined the R & P, at the outset, let refer paragraph 23 and 24 of the award of the tribunal whereby the tribunal computed the dependency loss which reads thus:

“[23] No any witness of the employer has been examined by the applicant to corroborate their say. On plain perusal of boll the documents it appears that Ex. BA is the slip where