Point of law: The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after making a substantial enhancement in the award amount, modified the interest component at a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find no reason to allow the interest in this matter at any rate higher than that allowed by High Court

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri. Shashi Kant Shukla, learned Advocate assisted by Sri. Satya Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company.

2. By way of this appeal, the claimants have challenged the judgment and award dated 29.7.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Ghazipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in M.A.C.P. No. 26 of 2011 awarding sum of Rs. 3,26,440/- as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6%.

3. We have not gone into the factual data except as important for our purpose namely compensation awarded. The accident is not in dispute. The deceased died out of accidental injuries is not in dispute. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them. Hence, the dispute involved in this appeal relates to the correctness in the calculation of compensation payable to the claimants. The details of facts except for deciding compensation are not narrated.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has committed grave error in considering the income of the deceased who was a salaried person aged 59 years which is evident from the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the net income of the deceased was Rs. 7,49,562/- per annum which was after the deduction of income tax.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that pension should not have been deducted from the compensation to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased and has relied on the decisions in Vimal Kanwar and Others vs. Kishore Dan and Others, (2013) 7 SCC 476 and decision of this Court in First Appeal from Order No. 3010 of 2014 (Rajesh Singh and Another vs. Margub Ali and Others), decided on 27.9.2021.

6. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head of future loss of income which should be granted in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 Law Suit (SC) 613 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (0) Supreme (SC) 1050.

7. The next contention is that the multiplier of 5 granted by the Tribunal is bad and it should be 9 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Supra) as the deceased was in the age bracket of 56-60 years. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the tribunal has granted only 10,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary damages which requires enhancement in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra). It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and requires to be enhanced. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th.

8. Sri. Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company has submitted that Tribunal has not committed any error and that pension is paid to the widow who has also now passed away cannot be considered to be loss to the estate. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the multiplier granted by the Tribunal and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not warrant any change.

9. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the deductions towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/2 as the deceased was survived by two major sons and father who are not the dependent on the deceased. The widow also passed away during the pendency of the appeal.

10. Having heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we accepts the submission of learned counsel for the appellant as far as income of the deceased is concerned. The income of the deceased was Rs. 7,49,562/- after the deduction of income tax