Point of Law : Accident claim - Purpose of keeping compensation is to safeguard the interest of the claimants. As long time has elapsed, the amount be deposited in the Saving Account of claimants in Nationalized Bank without F.D.R.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and Sri Shashi Kant Rai, learned counsel for owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 30.1.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 626 of 2013 awarding a sum of Rs.27,12,928/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is also not in dispute. The Tribunal has held that it is proved that vehicle was insured and there was no breach of policy and Insurance Company has accepted the findings as far as their liability is concerned. The only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded.

4. The accident took place on 10.10.2013. The deceased was 30 years of age, he was a Teacher in Bitaha Primary School and was earning Rs.27,238/-per month. The Tribunal considered his annual income to be Rs.3,11,934 after deducting income tax and house rent allowance from the salary. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, granted multiplier of 13 and awarded Rs.9,500/- towards non pecuniary damages.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that deduction of House Rent Allowance could not have been made and has relied on the decision in Vimal Kanwar and Others Vs. Kishore Dan and others, 2013 (3) T.A.C. 6 (S.C.).

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income by assigning reason that Guru Narain Singh, father of the deceased, is a retired government servant and is getting pension, therefore, he has not been dependent on the deceased, the mother of the deceased-has been dependent on the father of the deceased and the widow would have been appointed on compassionate ground.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on the decision in Civil Appeal No. 3269-3270 of 2007 (Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel and Another vs. United India Insurance Co. & Anr,) decided on 28.1.2014.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has lost sight of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 LawSuit (SC) 613 and subsequent judgment and has granted only Rs.9500/-towards non pecuniary damages which is on the lower side and requires to be enhanced in view of the decision of the Apex Court.

9. It is lastly submitted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and it should be as per the repo rate prevailing.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference of this Court as the widow was given compassionate appointment and the father of the deceased was also getting pension. It is further submitted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is just and does not require any enhancement.

11. The judgments on which the Tribunal has relied to grant lesser multiplier cannot be said to be laying down the law of just compensation. The said judgments stand eclipsed by the later judgments which should have been looked into by the Tribunal in the over zeal to hold reasonable compensation.

12. Reasonable compensation cannot be what the learned Judge/Tribunal feels, it has to be just compensation as per the principle of assessment. The decision in Sunita Devi v. Vimal Dwivedi, 2013 (3) TAC 844 has already been eclipsed by the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rekhaben & Others, AIR 2017 SC 2580 and also the a