Point of Law: Motor Accident Claim – Compensation - Dependants of deceased, deduction of 1/4 to which as children of 2 years and one of 7 months Kumari Alpana have loss their father at time of accident, deduction towards personal expenses of deceased should have been 1/4. As deceased was in age bracket of 26-30, multiplier of 17 is applicable.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This appeal challenges the award and decree though passed in favour of the claimants granting a sum of Rs.33,32,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation with 7% simple rate of interest. The claimants have felt aggrieved as the tribunal did not grant any amount under the head of future loss of income and there is no discussion also. Why the tribunal has not followed decisions of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (0) Supreme (SC) 1050. The claimants being dissatisfied with the awarded amount preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

3. The claimants moved Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 58 of 2015 before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge-7, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) claiming Rs.1,00,40,000/- as compensation at the rate of 18% rate of interest. It was averred therein that deceased was the only bread-winner of the family. He was hale and hearty and aged about 28 years at the time of accident. Facts as culled from the record are that deceased was working in Vasaka G. Engineering Company. On 9.1.2014, at about 8 am the deceased along with his brother riding on motorbike was going to the Company situated in District Faridabad and when they reached village Sikari Chauk, P.S. Sadar Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad, driver of the bus of Hariyana Transport Corporation bearing Registration No. HR 38 S 2103 dashed the motorbike as a result of which they were badly injured and in few minutes of the accident, the deceased passed away.

4. The Tribunal after recording evidence and after hearing the learned advocates for the parties, the Tribunal, vide the Judgment and award dated 18.1.2017, awarded a sum of Rs. 33,32,000/-along with 7% simple interest from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual payment thereof.

5. The accident is not in dispute. The vehicle being insured by the insurance company. It is also accepted that, no appeal is preferred by the insurance company, death occurred due to accidental injury is not in dispute. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head of Future Loss of Income and it has wrongly deducted 1/3rd amount in place of 1/4th. It is further submitted that less amount has been awarded under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of love and affection. The Tribunal further ignored loss of estate of the deceased; loss of consortium of spouse; loss of care and guidance of minor children and further it has granted less rate of interest than 12%.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference of the Court. It is further submitted by counsel that the tribunal has not committed any error as the rate of interest is as per the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 and that the deceased was in private employment and hence not entitled to future loss of income.

8. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after perusing the judgment and order impugned, the income of the deceased can be considered to be Rs.23000/-p.m. as deceased was employed in Kalkaji Engineering Company, to which as the deceased was below 40 years of age, 50% will have to be added, the reason being the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) an no way distinguishing whether the employment in private and or government employment. All the distinguishing led is regarding employment and self employment, hence the future loss of income looking to the facts of the case also. Looking to the dependants of the deceased, deduction of 1/4 to which as children of 2 years and one of 7 month