Financial assistance received by dependents is deductible from motor accident compensation only to the extent it overlaps with the specific pecuniary loss of income. Benefits not constituting income substitution, such as ancillary allowances, are not subject to deduction. Compensation must reflect actual earnings and established judicial principles.

JUDGMENT

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 08.11.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), whereby an amount of Rs. 1,46,108/- was awarded as compensation to the appellants/claimants along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization on account of death of Nafe Singh in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 21.10.2010.

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

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants assailed the impugned award on multiple grounds. It was contended that the income of the deceased was assessed on the lower side, ignoring cogent oral and documentary evidence on record, including the proved salary certificate. He further argued that the learned Tribunal further failed to apply settled principles of law governing computation of compensation, particularly with respect to addition towards future prospects, application of appropriate multiplier, and grant of just compensation under conventional heads such as loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Learned counsel also submitted that the beneficial object of the Motor Vehicles Act was overlooked, and impermissible reliance was placed on extraneous considerations such as ex-gratia benefits, which could not substitute statutory compensation. Lastly, it was urged that the rate of interest awarded was equally unjust and contrary to settled judicial precedents, therefore, he prayed that the award of the Tribunal be suitably modified in accordance with law.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT-INSURANCE COMPANY

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

DISCUSSION AND REASONING

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book of the case. I find substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants.

QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED

6. In the present case, in view of the statement of petitioner no. 1, Sewa Devi (widow of deceased), while deposing as PW-1 it was submitted that the deceased, was employed as a bus conductor with Haryana Roadways and drawing a salary of Rs. 13,588/- per month, which is duly supported by the salary certificate placed on record as Ex.P9. It was further proved on record that the deceased was paid allowances for overtime and night shift, which for the month of October were Rs. 3,820/- and Rs. 950/- respectively.

However, the learned Tribunal gravely erred in assessing the income of the deceased @ Rs. 10,783/- per month, as it failed to take into consideration the amounts received towards overtime and night shift allowances, which formed part of the actual earnings of the deceased. Accordingly, this Court reassesses the income of the deceased on the basis of his last drawn salary, including overtime and night shift allowances, @ Rs. 18,358/-.

6.1 Furthermore, a perusal of the record show that the widow of the deceased, was receiving monthly financial assistance of approximately Rs. 11,000/-.