JUDGMENT :

Archana Puri, J. 

1. These are two appeals i.e. FAOs-5323 and 5324-2017, filed at the instance of appellant-Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., to assail the Award dated 02.01.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, vide which, the compensation was granted on account of deaths of Bijender Singh and Indrawati, in a motor vehicular accident.

2. In the aforesaid appeals, cross objections, i.e. XOBJC-176-CII-2018 and XOBJC-258-CII-2018, have also been filed by the claimants, thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

3. The facts germane, to be noticed, are as follows:-

That, on 10/11.06.2015, the claimants along with their parents Bijender Singh and Indrawati, besides various other persons, were coming by Tata Safari bearing registration No.HR-26BY-0474 after visiting Vrindavan. One truck bearing registration No.RJ-02GA-9254, driven by respondent No.1-Ram Avtar, in a rash and negligent manner, which was going ahead of them, all of a sudden, had applied the brakes of the truck, while coming on wrong side, as a result whereof, the Tata Safari got entangled in the same and was badly damaged. Bijender Singh and Indrawati had suffered fatal injuries, whereas, other occupants had also suffered injuries. FIR was got registered qua the accident in question by Raj Hans, co-passenger.

4. The claimants, who are children of deceased Bijender Singh and Indrawati had filed the respective claim petitions for seeking compensation, on account of death of their parents.

5. FAO-5323-2017 relates to death of Bijender Singh, whereas, FAO-5324-2017 relates to death of Indrawati. Even, cross-objections have been filed by the claimants, in both the appeals, for seeking enhancement of the compensation.

6. Even though, the factum and manner of taking place of the accident was assailed in the grounds of appeal, but however, learned counsel for the insurance company, during the course of arguments, has restricted his submissions, only with regard to seeking reduction of the compensation awarded in both the claim petitions.

7. In this backdrop, firstly, let us consider the claim qua death of Indrawati, who was a housewife. From the evidence on record, it is established that deceased Indrawati was 45 years old, at the relevant time. However, her earnings were taken as Rs.3000/- per month, annual whereof is Rs.36,000/-. Considering her age to be 45 years, multiplier of '14' was applied and compensation was worked upon as Rs.5,04,000/-. Besides the aforesaid amount, another amount of Rs.20,000/- was granted, on the count of 'loss of estate', Rs.20,000/- towards 'funeral expenses' and Rs.20,000/-, on account of non-pecuniary damages as well as medical expenditure of Rs.41,317/-, as per the bills Ex.P1, P5 and P6 was also granted. Thus, in total, the compensation to the extent of Rs.6,05,317/- was granted.

8. So far as, deceased Bijender Singh is concerned, learned Tribunal had considered that deceased was allegedly receiving pension of Rs.15,795/-, on account of being Ex-serviceman. Further, he was reemployed as Maths Instructor in ITI Berli Kalan, Rewari and his earnings were Rs.38,113/-.

9. So far as, the amount of pension is concerned, the same was excluded from consideration by learned Tribunal, and thus took his earning as Rs.38,113/-, annual whereof was worked upon as Rs.4,57,356/-. The income tax was deducted as Rs.19,298/- and the residue amount was worked upon as Rs.4,38,058/-. On the basis thereof, bifurcation on monthly basis was done and the earnings were taken as Rs.36,505/- and multiplier of '13' was applied. However, 1/3rd ought to be deducted, but however, the same was erroneously not done by learned Tribunal. On account of 'future prospects' 30% was added and the compensation worked by learned Tribunal, in tabular form, is reproduced as herein given:-