JUDGMENT Kailash Gambhir, J.
1. By way of the present appeal the appellants seek to challenge the impugned award dated 23.11.2006, whereby the compensation amount of Rs. 2,84,000/- has been awarded in favor of the appellants along with interest @8% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. The grievance of the appellant in the present appeal is that the Tribunal has ignored the monthly salary certificate which was proved on record as Ex. PW1/1.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
On 15.2.2006 at about 5 p.m., the deceased Smt. Sneh Sharma was crossing Shankar Road red light near Hongchi Restaurant towards old Rajender Nagar and when she reached near the divider of the road, suddenly a Tata bus bearing registration No. DLIPA 1835 which was coming from Ridge Road side being driven by the driver in rash and negligent manner hit the deceased, consequently she received fatal injuries and died on the spot.
2. Counsel for the appellant contends that the deceased Smt. Sneh Sharma was employed on the post of Assistant Committee Organizer with the MCD and she was drawing a salary of Rs. 11,900 per month at the relevant time of the accident. Counsel for the appellant further contends that the appellant had examined PW1, Mr. Dharmpal Tyagi, clerk of the MCD who in his deposition had categorically admitted the employment of the deceased with the MCD on the post of Assistant Committee Organizer. The said witness has also proved the salary certificate of the deceased as Ex. PW1/1, which shows that the deceased was drawing monthly emolument of Rs. 11,900/-. Counsel thus contends that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the Minimum Wages Act to assess the income of the deceased when evidence to this effect was placed on record by the appellant. Counsel for the appellant has thus sought to urge that the said evidence could not have been ignored by the Tribunal and no reasons have been given in the award also as to why such evidence has been ignored by the Tribunal. Counsel for the appellant further contends that even PW-2, daughter of the deceased in her deposition proved the said income of the deceased. PW-2 in her deposition has stated that the deceased used to keep Rs. 2000-2500/- for her personal expenses and rest of the amount she was spending towards the maintenance of her father. She further contends that husband of the deceased was dependent upon his deceased wife as he was confined to bed due to the paralysis.
3. Per contra, Col. S.S. Yadav, counsel for the respondent contends that husband of the deceased was an ex-serviceman and was getting pension and the two daughters of the deceased were already married. Besides that, husband of the deceased was also receiving the pension of the deceased. Counsel thus contends that there is no financial dependency of the legal heirs left by the deceased and therefore, no fault can be found with the findings given by the Tribunal, assessing financial dependency of the appellant to the extent of Rs. 1,44,000/- after applying the multiplier of 8. Besides awarding compensation towards loss of financial dependency, the Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 1 lac towards general expenses, keeping in view the paralytic condition of the husband of the deceased. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- towards love and affection and Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral rites.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the award.
5. Perusal of the award shows that the Tribunal has completely ignored the deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 who had duly proved on record the income of the deceased at Rs. 11,900/- p.m. Once it has been proved on record that the deceased was drawing a particular income then there cannot be any justifiable reason for ignoring such income, which was proved on record. I, therefore, do not find any justification in the finding of the Tribunal, who assessed the income of the deceased on the analogy that she could have earned a sum of Rs. 3,000/-by doing household work like cooking food, washing clothes etc. It seems the Tribunal has passed the said award in a great haste as instead of taking into account the income proved on record with the help of salary certificate, it has adopted the analogy of assessing the income of the deceased on the basis of her being a household lady. The findings of the Tribunal are thus absolutely perverse and illegal. The income of the deceased after deducting transport allowance, disability allowance and medical allowance comes to Rs. 11,625/- in place of Rs. 3,000/- as assessed by the Tribunal. The deceased is survived by her two married daughters and her husband, therefore, safely half of the said income can be taken into account for deducting personal expenses. The multiplier of 8 has been correctly applied as per the Second Schedule as the deceased was 55 years of age at the time of the accident. After applying the said multiplier loss of financial dependency would come to Rs. 5,58,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1 lac as general damages without giving any justification for awarding the said amount. It appears that due to paralytic condition of the husband of the deceased the Tribunal has awarded the said compensation towards general damages. As the husband of the deceased is getting monthly pension being ex-serviceman, and is also receiving pension of his deceased wife, there is no justification for grant of general damages, therefore the same is disallowed. Taking into consideration the monthly income of the deceased, I enhance the compensation towards loss of financial dependency to Rs. 5,58,000/- from Rs. 1,44,000/-. The compensation amount under the other heads would remain the same.
6. Since in para 10 of the award, reference has been made to the statements of married daughters of the appellant No. 1, the award was directed to be payable only to the husband of the deceased i.e., appellant No. 1, accordingly, differential amount be paid to the appellant No. 1 by the respondent, along with up-to-date interest @7.5%p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realisation.
7. With these directions, the appeal stands disposed of.