The calculation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act should consider the deceased's salary income, pension amount, and the appropriate multiplier.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act') against the award, dated 31.8.2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Nagaon, in MAC Case No. 210 of 2003, under Section 166 of the MV Act, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has determined a sum of Rs. 8,75,000/-, as compensation, payable to the widow, sons and daughters of deceased Budheswar Bora, who had died in a motor vehicular accident, on 12.8.2002, as a result of negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. BR-19/J-8133, and the learned Tribunal has accordingly directed the insurer to pay the said sum of Rs. 8,75,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until realization of the entire amount, the whole amount of compensation being payable within a period of sixty days with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Aggrieved by the award, the insurer has impugned the same in the present appeal.

2. I have heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Counsel for the insurer-appellant, and Mr. J. Borah, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 7.

3. What may be pointed out, at the very outset, is that the finding of the learned Tribunal that the claimants are entitled to receive compensation, for the death of Budheswar Bora, is not in dispute in this appeal. It is also not in dispute that, as insurer of the offending vehicle, the present appellant is liable to pay compensation to the claimants-respondents. What is, however, in dispute is the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants. In this regard, it has been pointed out by Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel for the insurer-appellant, that the said deceased was a teacher in a higher secondary school and his date of superannuation being 31.3.2005, it is clear that had the said deceased remained alive, he would have served for barely a further period 2 years and 7 months. In such circumstances, points out Mr. Dutta, the learned Tribunal could not have treated 2/3rd of the pay and allowances, which the said deceased was drawing at the time of his death, as the amount, which would have been receivable by the claimants, had the said deceased remained alive. Mr. Dutta further points out that in a case of this nature, when the said deceased had merely two years and seven months to retire, his last pay and allowances ought not to have been made the sole basis for determination of compensation. In support of his submission, Mr. Dutta places, reliance on the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanta Lakshmi reported in 2005 (3) TAC 647. The submission, so made on behalf of the insurer-appellants, could not be substantially controverted on behalf of the claimants-respondents. It is in this backdrop that the present appeal deserves to be decided.

4. While considering the present appeal, what needs to be borne in mind is that when the multiplier applicable, in a given case, is higher than the number of years of service, which the deceased could have put in, before his superannuation, the contribution to the family, or loss of dependency of the family, cannot be assessed entirely on the basis of the last salary income of the deceased. When a person's age of superannuation is 59 years and he dies, in a motor vehicular accident, at the age of 57 years, leaving behind his widow and children, the loss of dependency has to be calculated in a manner, which would be quite different from the manner of making assessment of loss of dependency in the case of a person, who may have died, at the age of 40 years, with about 25 years of service still left. In a case of present nature, when a person dies at the age of 57 years, whose age of superannuation is 59 years, his financial contribution to the family could not have been the same after the age of 59 years. It is in this light that the decision, in Smt. Shanta Lakshmi (supra), needs to be considered.

5. There is no dispute