Court No. - 26
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2955 of 2009
Appellant :- Asha Pandey & Ors. Respondent :- Shailendra Singh & Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.
3. The claimants-appellants instituted a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.23,54,080/- on the ground that Krishna Dev Pandey, who died in an accident on 04.01.2006 with Truck No.
U.P. 70 U/9857, was a Police Constable and was getting salary of Rs.11,270/-. At the time of the accident the age of the deceased was 37 years.
4. The Tribunal while deciding the issue of quantification of compensation on the basis of salary certificate held that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.8,638/-. Out of the said amount, the Tribunal deducted Rs.2,030/- which was deducted from the salary of the deceased as premium for general insurance and Rs.630/- towards cycle allowance and special diet allowance for assessing income of deceased for computing the compensation. The Tribunal for the purposes of computing the compensation held the income of deceased to be Rs.5,978/- per month. From the said amount, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and after applying the multiplier of 16 awarded Rs.7,65,312/- for loss of dependency. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.5,000/- towards love and affection and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses.
5. Challenging the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of quantification of compensation, counsel for the appellants has urged that the Tribunal has erred in law in deducting Rs.2,030/- which was deducted from the salary of the deceased towards payment of premium of general insurance policy. He contends that the said amount cannot be excluded from the salary of the deceased for the purposes of computing the compensation and thus, according to him, the compensation should be calculated treating the salary of deceased to be Rs.8,008/- per month.
6. The further submission raised by the counsel for the appellants is that the deceased was a government employee and, therefore, the Tribunal should have awarded 50% towards future prospect considering the age of the deceased, and further, since the dependents of deceased were more than 4 in numbers, therefore, the Tribunal should have deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd. It was further urged that award towards loss of consortium to the extent of Rs.5,000/- and towards funeral expenses to the extent of Rs.2,000/- is also on lower side. He submits that the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium in place of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 (16) SCC 680.
7. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company submits that deduction by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.2,030/- which was paid for payment of premium of general insurance is justified in the facts of the present case. He further submits that the age of the deceased was 37 years and, therefore, in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others 2009 (6) SCC 121, the multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied instead of 16. According to the counsel for the respondent-insurance company, the compensation awarded in the present case is just and proper and do not call for interference by this Court.
8. I have considered the rival submission of the parties and perused the record.
10. It is settled in law that the amount deducted from the salary of an employee towards payment of insurance is to be included for the purpose of computing the compensation of loss of dependency. Thus, the Tribunal has erred in deducting Rs.2,030/- which was deducted from the salary of the deceased for calculating the compensation, and hence, the compensation should be computed treating the income of deceased to be Rs.8,008/- per month.
9. So far as the contention of the counsel for the appellants 1/4th should have been deducted towards personal expenses and 50% should have been awarded towards future prospect, the said contention is supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and, therefore, it is provided that the compensation should be computed by deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased and the claimants are awarded 50% towards future prospect on the income of deceased.
10. So far as the contention of the counsel for the respondents that the age of the deceased is 37 years and, therefore, the Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 15 instead of 16. The said contention is also supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and consequently, it is held that the compensation should be calculated by applying the multiplier of 15 and not 16.
11. Further, this Court is of the opinion that the funeral expenses and loss of consortium awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.5,000/- under each head is not correct, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited (supra), accordingly, the funeral expenses is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to 15,000/-, loss of consortium is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- is also awarded towards loss of estate.
12. The counsel for the appellant lastly urged that the award of 6% interest is on lower side. Considering the facts of the present case, it is further provided that the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @7%.
13. The appeal is partly allowed and the order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.11.2018 Ishan