The main legal point established in the judgment is the calculation of compensation in motor vehicle accident cases, considering the deceased's salary as per the 6th Pay Commission, future prospects, funeral expenses, and loss of love and affection.

Ajay Tewari, J.

These two appeals bearing FAO Nos.1932 and 1939 of 2011 arise out of an accident in which two persons viz Madan Lal Sharma and his wife Veena Devi died. In FAO No.1932 of 2011, the claimants the mother and two children of the deceased-Madan Lal Sharma, while in FAO No.1939 of 2011, the claimants are the mother-in-law and two children of the deceased-Veena Devi.

2. Brief facts are that on 1.12.2007 at about 7pm, the deceased-Madan Lal Sharma along with his wife Veena Devi @ Veena Kumari, was going on his motor cycle to village Malikpur, Tehsil Pathankot from Ward No.11 Kathua (J&K) to meet his relatives along with his cousin brothers Kewal Krishan and Jaswant Singh who were following the deceased on their motor cycle, and when they reached opposite Railway Station Madhopur, the offending truck coming from behind, being driven by respondent No.1, rashly and negligently struck against the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result of this accident, deceased Madan Lal and Veena Devi sustained serious injuries, Veena Devi died at the spot, while Madan Lal died in the hospital on the same day.

3. The Tribunal held respondent No.1 responsible for causing the accident. As regards the death of Madan Lal Sharma, the Tribunal granted a total compensation of Rs. 14.40 lacs, while in the case of deceased Veena Devi, the Tribunal granted a total compensation of Rs. 13.26 lacs.

FAO No.1932 of 2011

4. Counsel for the appellants has argued that though actually the salary of the deceased on the date of accident i.e 1.12.2007 was Rs. 18571/- yet subsequently recommendations of 6th Pay Commission were accepted w.e.f 1.1.2006 and as per that, salary of the deceased would have been increased to Rs. 24,184/- and that the Tribunal erred in dismissing this only on the ground that the increased salary was never given to the deceased.

5. I am in agreement with counsel for the appellants. Once it is proven that w.e.f 1.1.2006, salary had gone up, the mere fact that the same was not released on the date of death would not justify that the same be ignored. In the circumstances, salary of the deceased is taken to be Rs. 24,184/-. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013(9) SCC 54, 15% future prospects are granted. Deduction has rightly been fixed at ?rd.

6. Counsel for the appellants that the multiplier of 10 has been applied, whereas it should have been 11 in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, AIR 2009 (SC) 3104. This is also accepted.

7. Counsel for the appellants has further argued that nothing has been awarded for last rites and loss of love and affection. I find this also to be correct. In the circumstances, I award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as funeral expenses. I further award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each to appellants No.1 and 3 (mother and son) towards loss of love and affection, and an amount of Rs. 1 lac to appellant No.2 (daughter) for loss of love and affection. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 8% pa from the date of application till the date of payment. The share of appellant No.1 be put in a fixed deposit for a period of three years and she would be entitled to monthly interest for the same.

FAO No.1939 of 2011

8. Counsel for the appellants has argued that though actually the salary of the deceased on the date of accident i.e 1.12.2007 was Rs. 13222/- yet subsequently recommendations of 6th Pay Commission were accepted w.e.f 1.1.2006 and as per that, salary of the deceased would have been increased to Rs. 17,993/- and that the Tribunal erred in dismissing this only on the ground that the increased salary was never given to the deceased.

9. I am in agreement with counsel for the appellants. Once it is proven that w.e.f 1.1.2006, salary had gone up, the mere fact that the same was not released on the date of death would not justify that the same be ignored. In the circumstances, s