Point of Law: Family mainly the widow would as per the rules will receive a sum, which will aggregate to upto 2025 Rs. 67,28,256/- for a period of 12 years which will not permit us to disturb the findings as far non entitlement of amount for twelve years

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Pradeep Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment dated 22.07.2017 passed by M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court-I, Gautam Budh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.226 of 2013 awarding a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% as compensation.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is in dispute. The respondent concerned has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The issues to be decided are the quantum of compensation awarded and whether deceased was also negligent in causing the accident.

4. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased who died in the fateful vehicular accident which occurred on 15.7.2013 when the deceased Ajab Sigh at about 9.30 in the night was going on Motorcycle No. HR 29 Q 2011 and was returning to home (Faridabad), and when he reached near Galgotiya University, a Maruti Alto No. HR 51 AS 6256 being driven rashly and negligently came and dashed with his scooter whereby he suffered injuries and when he was moved to the Hospital, he succumbed to injuries. One Harinder Singh tried to stop the Maruti Caar but the driver fled away. Claimant No.4, Jaipal Singh lodged the complaint. The deceased was a Teacher in Education Department of Haryana and his basic salary was Rs.51,860/-p.m. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their replies and contended that their vehicle was not involved in the said incident. The vehicle was insured with it is accepted by respond no.3, insurance company but they pleaded that the vehicle with plied in contravention of policy condition. The tribunal framed about 9 issues. We are mainly concerned with the issue of negligence and dependency/compensation.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income which is required to be granted in view of the decision titled National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. It is further submitted that amount under non-pecuniary heads which is granted and the interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and requires enhancement. It is further submitted that as the deceased was survived by his mother, wife, one daughter and two sons, the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th and not 1/3rd as deducted by the tribunal. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the appellants cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender and others, Civil Appeal Nos. 242-243 of 2020 decided on 13.1.2020.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently objected to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that in light of the evidence adduced and it is contended that the tribunal has not committed any error as Compassionate Assistance of full pay is given by the Government to the heirs at least for 12 years. It is further submitted that wife would be getting full pension, entire amount which deceased was getting, till the date of retirement and therefore also requires to be deducted.

7. It is submitted by counsel for claimants that the Supreme Court’s decision was cited before the tribunal but tribunal has deducted bonus, maintenance allowance, PF and gratuity from commuptable income holding that they are not part of the salary and, therefore, the tribunal held that the same cannot be considered to be part of the income. The tribunal added 40% as future loss of i