Compensation for death in a motor accident must account for emotional dependency and future prospects, leading to re-computation based on established legal principles.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Archana Puri, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants Chameli Mittal and Monika Mittal, at first instance, thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal, on account of death of Jagdish Rai Mittal, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 13.07.2005.

2. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the appeal, Rajiv Mittal, son of deceased had also filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, which was allowed and had, thereafter, joined the proceedings, vide separate order of even date.

3. On appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, learned Tribunal had granted compensation to the appellants-claimants to the extent of Rs.5,01,784/-, on account of death of Jagdish Rai Mittal.

4. So far as, the fact of accident and manner of taking place of the same, as well as the liability fastened upon the respondents, is concerned, suffice to make mention that, none of the persons, who have been so made liable, have filed any appeal and as such, this aspect, does not warrant further scrutiny.

5. In the present appeal, it was only the insurance company, who had made appearance through counsel.

6. From the evidence on record, it stands established that the deceased was working with The Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development and Finance Corporation and, at the relevant time, he was posted as District Manager, Mansa. Also, it stands established that he was drawing the salary of Rs.24,672/- per month, at the time of accident and his date of birth is established to be 03.07.1948. The salary certificate of the deceased for the month of July 2005, is Ex.P5. Also, form No.16 relating to the period 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005 for the assessment year 2005-2006 has come on record, which reveals about the detail of the salary paid and the tax deducted. From the recitals of form No.16, it is evident that the tax on total income was Rs.37,068/-, which approximately, comes to be Rs.3,090/- per month. After making said deduction, the monthly income, works out to be Rs.21,672/-.

7. However, considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 8', was applied by learned Tribunal, for working upon the compensation, for a period of one year, in one block and for subsequent seven years, it was worked upon as Rs.3,03,408/-, in the second block, i.e. after the retirement. Besides the same, Rs.15,000/- was granted, towards 'loss of consortium' and Rs.10,000/- was granted, on the count of 'last rites' and thus, the total compensation was worked upon as Rs.5,01,748/-.

8. However, the compensation, so awarded by learned Tribunal calls for re-computation, as per prevalent settled law.

9. In these circumstances, proceeding further to re-appraise the earnings of the deceased.

10. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that learned counsel for the insurance company has resisted the claim for compensation, at the instance of Rajiv Mittal, whom he states that he is Chartered Accountant and as such, was not dependent upon the deceased. However, the aforesaid submission is not tenable. In our Indian society, it is not always the financial dependency of the children upon the parents, but, besides the same, there is also emotional dependency of the parents, upon the children and vice-versa. Considering the same, Rajiv Mittal, son of the deceased is also entitled to compensation.

11. Keeping in view the date of birth of deceased Jagdish Rai Mittal to be 03.07.1948, it becomes evident that the he was 57 years old, at the time of death, in the accident in question. Also, keeping in view the avocation, so followed by the deceased, it is evident that he was to retire after one year of the service. In the given circumstances, when the date of accident is too near to the retirement, it shall be appropriate to split the multiplier for one year and seven years'. However, keeping in view the age of the deceased, as per Pranay Sethi's case, National Insurance Compan