JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma, J. (Oral) :

The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 24.03.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellants/claimants to the tune of Rs.4,70,000/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 6 % per annum on account of death of Mewa Singh, in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 21.10.2003.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. He further contends that deceased- Mewa Singh was 52 years old at the time of accident and was working as JBT Teacher. He was drawing a salary of Rs.11,000/- per month. He further contends:

ii) That the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects, loss of estate and the amount awarded for loss of consortium and funeral expenses is on lower side.

iii) That the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 6 instead of 11.

iv) That the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenditure instead of 1/4th. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contends that the amount of compensation as assessed by the Ld. Tribunal, has rightly been granted to the appellants/claimants. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

6. A perusal of the award shows that the Ld. Tribunal has erred in considering the annual income of the deceased-Mewa Singh as Rs.77,000/- for the purpose of computation of compensation. According to Ex.A-5 and A-6, the salary of the deceased after taking into consideration his basic pay and all other allowances stood as Rs. 11,538/- per month. After deducting the tax payable, which is Rs. 6,559/-(as deducted in the financial year 2002-03) net annual income of the deceased comes out to be Rs.1,31,897/-. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.10,991/- (Rs.1,31,89712).

ii) The Ld. Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 6 instead of 11. Further, the learned Tribunal has also wrongly deducted 1/3rd instead of 1/4th amount of the income of the deceased towards personal expenditure.

iii). Further perusal of award reveals that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects, loss of estate and the amount awarded for loss of consortium and funeral expenses is also on lower side.

Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121], laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of the same are as under:-

'30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having a considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exce