JUDGMENT

R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):

1. Sri Kishan @ Kishan Lal, 29 years, a bachelor died in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 21.04.2008 at about 11:35 PM involving motor vehicle described as Mahindra Champion bearing registration no.DL- 1LJ-3613 (the offending vehicle). His three junior siblings, two of whom were concededly minors, now first to third respondents in MAC appeal no.748/2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the claimants”) instituted an accident claim case under Sections 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the M.V.Act) on 05.09.2008, it having been registered by the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) as MACT case no.765/2008, inter- alia, on the averments that the offending vehicle was driven by Monu son of Ram Prasad (the driver), it being registered in the name of Pooran Lal (appellant in MAC appeal no. 506/2015) and insured against third party risk for the period in question with M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. (appellant in MAC appeal no.748/2013).

2. The tribunal held inquiry on conclusion of which it decided the claim case, by judgment dated 11.02.2013, upholding the case of the claimants that the death had occurred due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle by ‘

its driver (Monu). It awarded compensation in the sum of 6,87,396/- with interest at the rate of seven & half percent (7.5%) per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, the said amount being inclusive of ‘ ‘

6,42,396/- calculated as loss of dependency in addition to 10,000/- each ‘

towards funeral expenses and loss to estate, 25,000/- towards loss of love & affection.

3. The insurer while admitting that the vehicle was insured against third party risk took the plea that there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy since driver was not holding a valid or effective license. A specific issue was framed in this regard which was answered in favour of the insurer. Thus, while being called upon to satisfy the award in favour of the claimants (third parties), the insurer was granted right to recover the said amount from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

4. By its appeal (MAC appeal no.748/2013), the insurer questions the computation of loss of dependency on the ground that since the deceased was a bachelor, one half (1/2) should have been deducted towards personal and living expenses as against one third taken into account by the tribunal. This contention must be upheld in view of dictum in Sarla Verma (Smt.) &

Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.

‘

5. Since the tribunal had assumed the notional income of 4723/-, loss of ‘

dependency comes to (4723/2) 2362/- per month. On the multiplier of 17, which was correctly adopted, the total loss of dependency is computed as ‘ ‘

(2362x12x17) 4,81,848/-, rounded off to 4,82,000/-.

6. It is, however, noted that the award under the non-pecuniary heads of damages granted by the tribunal is inadequate. Following the view taken by this court in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150, the award under heads ‘

of loss of love and affection is increased to 1,00,000/- and those towards ‘

loss of estate and funeral expenses are increased to 25,000/-. Thus, the total compensation payable in the case comes to (4,82,000+1,50,000)

‘

6,32,000/-.

7. It is also noted that the tribunal has awarded a lower rate of interest. Following the consistent view taken by this Court [see judgment dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors.], the rate of interest is increased to 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

8. The award is modified accordingly.

9. The tribunal had apportioned the award amongst the three claimants by specifying the awards, falling to their respective shares. Since the amount of compensation awarded has been modified, it is directed that the ‘

share of first claimant ( 1,00,000/-)