(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 21st October, 2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surendranagar in M.A.C.P. No. 575 of 2005. The Claim Petition was filed by the heirs of deceased Raghuvirsinh Harubha Rana who died in vehicular accident which took place on 7.12.2005. The deceased was travelling on a bicycle when the truck insured by the appellant insurance company came from behind and hit the cyclist. Injuries received by Raghuvirsinh resulted into death though he was shifted to a nearby hospital. FIR in this respect was lodged on the same day. Though it was a case of hit and run, eye witness seem to have taken down the registration number of the truck involved in accident. The Claims Tribunal recorded that the involvement of the truck in question was not disputed by the opponents.
2. The widow and children of the deceased, therefore, lodged above mentioned Claims Petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000.00 from the driver, owner and insurance company of the vehicle involved in accident. The Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of truck. With respect to the income of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal noted that the deceased was serving as driver in ST Corporation. His pay slip for the month of December, 2005 was produced before the Tribunal which showed the gross income of Rs.11,845.00. The Claims Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased between 52 to 53 years on the basis of service record and date of retirement. The Claims Tribunal without giving any increase in the salary and after deducting tax from the gross salary, computed income of the deceased at Rs.11,000.00 per month. Thereafter setting apart 1/3rd thereof for the personal expenditure of the deceased, adopted the dependency benefit of Rs.7335.00 per month for the claimants. The Tribunal after applying multiplier of 11, worked out dependency benefit of the claimants at Rs.10,42,404.00 (that is 7897/- x12x11). To such figure of loss of dependency, the Claims Tribunal added a sum of Rs.25000.00 each for loss of consortium and loss of estate and Rs.7500.00 towards funeral expenses. The Claims Tribunal, thus, assessed compensation of Rs.10,99,904.00. This was rounded off to Rs.11,00,000.00 which was awarded by way of compensation to the claimants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced on record relevant documents such as deposition of witnesses and pay slip, income tax return of deceased etc. On the basis of such documents, learned counsel vehemently contended that the income of the deceased of Rs.11845.00 on the date of death was his gross income. From such income, income tax and other statutory deductions ought to be reduced to arrive at net income which can be taken into account for assessing the dependency benefit of claimants. The counsel therefore contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing dependency benefit at Rs.10,42,404.00.
4. With respect to the accident and the manner in which such accident took place resulting into death of Raghuvirsinh, there is hardly any dispute. The Claims Tribunal in the impugned award noted that with respect to the involvement of the truck in question, the opponents had not raised any dispute. Further, with respect to the conclusion of the Claims Tribunal that the accident occurred on account of sole negligence of the truck driver, we have no reason to interfere. It appears that it was brought on record through reliable evidence that the truck had hit the cyclist from behind causing death of Raghuvirsinh. No serious arguments were made before us in this regard.
5. With respect to the question of compensation, we notice that the deceased had drawn gross income of Rs.11,845.00 from his employment as driver in the ST Corporation. From such gross income, statutory deductions such as income tax, professional tax would have to be reduced. However, the income tax return filed by the deceased and the one which was accepted by the Income Tax Department showed that out of the total tax of Rs.7516.00, the deceased received rebate of Rs.2875.00. Thus, the total tax liability was Rs.4641.00 out of which, he had already paid the tax by way of Deduction at Source of Rs.2000.0 and had paid the remaining tax of Rs.2641.00 to the Income Tax Department. Thus, the tax liability of the deceased was Rs.4641.00 for the whole year i.e. not more than Rs.400.00 per month. Even reducing his gross income by such figure and also making some allowances for professional tax, the Claims Tribunal having accepted Rs.11000.00 as net income at the time of death which cannot be said to be, in any manner, excessive. It was on this base figure that the Claims Tribunal adopted for working out the dependency benefits of the family. We may recall, that the Tribunal, looking to the age of the deceased, gave no benefit for future rise in income and worked out the future loss of income on the basis of current income of the deceased. Out of the said sum of Rs.11000.00, the Claims Tribunal set apart 1/3rd towards personal expenditure of the deceased and that is how the claims tribunal arrived at a sum of Rs.7897.00 by way of dependency benefits per month for the claims. We do not see that the Claims Tribunal committed serious error so as to call for our interference.
5. We notice that the case involved death of a driver of ST Corporation. It is well known that the pay structure of the State employees and the employees of the Statutory Corporations undergo periodical upward revisions. The deceased, therefore, would have received benefits of increments, dearness allowance and benefits from implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Commissions. We can take judicial notice of fact that the 6th Pay Commission recommendations were implemented with retrospective effect from 1.1.2006 i.e. shortly after the death of the deceased. Even otherwise, the deceased was a experienced driver of heavy vehicles. Post retirement also, he would have received some remunerative placement. These are the additional factors on the basis of which we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned award. We would, therefore, not be justified in entertaining this appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
(Akil Kureshi,J.) (C.L.Soni,J.) an vyas Top