Financial assistance received by dependents is only deductible from motor accident compensation if it directly overlaps with the pecuniary loss of income. Benefits unrelated to income substitution, such as allowances, are not subject to deduction.

JUDGMENT

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 09.05.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), whereby an amount of Rs. 28,59,000/- (Rupees twenty eight lakhs fifty nine thousand only) was awarded as compensation to the appellants/claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

BRIEF FACTS

2. A claim petition came to be filed at the instance of appellants/claimants before the Ld. Tribunal, praying for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 90,00,000/- (Rupees ninety lakhs only) on account of death of Manoj Kumar in a vehicular accident which took place on 09.05.2013 while alleging rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1-driver.

3. Learned Tribunal after appraisal of evidence on record held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/driver, consequently assessed income of deceased who was employed as Lecturer in Education Department, Haryana, posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Baroli, District Sonepat and awarded compensation in the following manner:-

Further, liability was jointly and severally fastened upon the driver, the owner and the Insurance Company and the compensation amount was ordered to be disbursed in equal proportions.

4. Being aggrieved against the award dated 09.05.2013, the present appeal was preferred by the appellants for enhancement of compensation and modifying the impugned award passed by the Ld. Tribunal, as per the latest law. Facts as specified in the claim petition about the manner of accident and the issue regarding negligence of the driver have been recorded in favour of appellants/claimants by the Ld. Tribunal, not being under challenge, need not be repeated here for the sake of brevity.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS

5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants assailed the impugned award, contending that the deceased was employed as a Lecturer in the Education Department, Haryana, and was posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Baroli, District Sonepat, earning a monthly salary of Rs.42,000/-, whereas the learned Tribunal erroneously assessed his income at Rs.38,000/-. It was further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to consider future prospects in accordance with settled law, and that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads was also not in consonance with the established legal principles. The multiplier applied, as well as the rate of interest awarded, were even assailed as being on the lower side. On these grounds, enhancement of the compensation was prayed for.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.3/INSURANCE COMPANY

6. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No. 3/Insurance Company neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts of the present case, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no interference.

DISCUSSION AND REASONING

7. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the paper- book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant.

QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED

8. In the present case, in view of the statement of petitioner no.1 Seema (widow