The court ruled that social security deductions from income are not applicable in compensation calculations, emphasizing the need to consider all income components for just compensation.

JUDGMENT :

(Maulik J. Shelat, J.)

1. The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act by original claimant since deceased continued by her legal heirs against judgment and award dated 16.04.2012 passed by MACP (Auxilliary), City Civil Court No.13, Ahmedabad seeking an additional compensation for the death of husband of the original claimant – Lalitaben @ Lilaben.

2. The Short facts of the case appear to be that the husband of the original claimant namely Ratilal Gandalal Patel met with an accident on 12.05.1999 at about 7:30 am on public road by Truck No. GJ-1-TT-5999. He sustained very serious injuries and during the course of treatment he succumbed to injuries.

2.1 The widow of the deceased has filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- from driver, owner and insurance company of aforesaid truck.

2.2 The opponent No.3 – insurance company has appeared and filed its written statement and contested claim on its merits.

2.3 The original claimant has been examined at Exh.36 and also submitted following documents in support of her case;

Sr. No. Description Exh.

1 Deposition of petitioner 36

2 FIR 57

3 Panchnama of accident 58

4 Insurance Policy 32

5 P. M. Report 59

6 Copy of passport of deceased 48

2.4 After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the tribunal has found that due to rash and negligent driving of the truck involved in the accident, the husband of the claimant succumbed to injuries and died in an accident which is arising out of use of motor vehicle. So, after considering oral and documentary evidence on record, learned tribunal has granted total compensation of Rs.4,65,000/- with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till its realization. Hence, present appeal.

3. Submission of appellants

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Sandip C. Shah would submit that the tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and not decided the quantum of claim as per the oral as well as documentary evidence, thereby committed a serious error in granting inadequate compensation. He would further submit that the deceased was NRI working at USA and earning 400 US Dollars per week i.e. 1600 US Dollars per month. Whereas, the tribunal has considered only 320 US Dollars per month income of the deceased by calculating minimum wages so prevailing in US at the time of accident. He would further submit that the tribunal has committed a serious error by deducting 30 US Dollars out of 320 US Dollars being a social security amount. So, tribunal has only considered 183 US Dollars per month as monthly dependency and 2196 US Dollars yearly dependency benefit to the claimant. To buttress his argument, Learned advocate Mr. Shah has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Partricia Jean Mahajan And Ors. reported in (2002) 6 SCC 281 in support of his submission and urged that even if this Court will confirm findings of the tribunal so far as ascertaining the income of the deceased is just and proper then also 30 US Dollars deducted of social security amount by tribunal is wrong and contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Partricia Jean Mahajan (supra).

3.2 Lastly, he would submit that in view of recent decision passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, original claimant being widow is entitled for spousal consortium of Rs.48,400/-, and also entitled to receive Rs. 18,150/ each towards loss to estate and funeral expenses respectively. Thus, he requested this Court to grant just and reasonable compensation in the interest of justice.

4. Submissions of Respondent

4.1 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati appearing for respondent – insurance company opposed this appeal by contending inter alia that there is no error committed by the tribunal in awarding compensation which is just