$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 01.09.2023 + MAC.APP. 83/2017 USHA & ORS ..... Appellants Through: Mr.Anuj Arora, Adv.

versus AKBAR & ORS (UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD)

..... Respondents Through: Mr.Ravi Sabharwal, Adv for R-3 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the Award dated 26.09.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned ‘Tribunal’) in MACT No. 52/2014 and MACT New No. 15208/2015 titled Smt. Usha & Ors. v. Akbar & Ors..

2. The limited challenge of the appellants, who were the claimants before the learned Tribunal, are as under:-

a) That the learned Tribunal has erred in adopting the multiplier dependent on the age of the mother of the deceased, rather than on the age of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the multiplier has to be based on the age of the deceased. He Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL submits that, in the present case, the deceased was aged around 28 years on the date of the accident, and, therefore, the multiplier to be adopted should have been 17 instead of 13, which has been adopted by the learned Tribunal;

b) That the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at only Rs.23,992/- per month. Drawing reference to the pay-slips issued by SMCC Construction India Limited, where the deceased was working at the time of the accident, for the months of January 2014 and February 2014, he submits that while for January 2014, the deceased earned a gross income of Rs.85,442/- per month; in the month of February 2014, his gross pay was Rs.59,797/-. The learned counsel for the appellants also draws my attention to Form No. 16 (TDS certificate) of the deceased, to submit that the said certificate shows the income of the deceased as Rs.9,28,967/- per annum, on which TDS has been deducted and deposited by the employer. He submits that, therefore, the income of the deceased should have been taken at a minimum of Rs.10,00,000/- per annum.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3, while not disputing that the learned Tribunal has erred in taking the multiplier based on the age of the mother of the deceased, and admitting that the correct multiplier of 17 should have been adopted as per the age of the deceased, disputes the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNsIuLbmission of the learned counsel for the appellants on the income of the deceased to be taken into account. He submits that the salary slip for the month of February 2014 of the deceased clearly shows his Basic Salary as only Rs.14,100/-, with certain other allowances added to it to make the Gross Pay. He submits that allowances like Conveyance Allowance, Medical Reimbursement, LTA, etc., are not to be added to the income of the deceased, as these allowances are personal in nature to the deceased.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

5. On the first aspect of the multiplier to be adopted, there cannot be a dispute that the learned Tribunal has erred in adopting the multiplier based on the age of the mother of the deceased while awarding compensation. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, it was the age of the deceased which should have been taken into consideration for determining the relevant multiplier. The deceased was aged around 28 years on the date of the accident, therefore, the correct multiplier to be adopted should have been 17. The Impugned Award shall stand modified accordingly.

6. On the issue of the income of the deceased, as the date of the accident is 16.03.2014, the relevant salary slip, therefore, to be taken into consideration would be the one immediately prior to the date of the accident, tha