Anita And Ors. vs Jaswantsing Majorsing Jat And ...
2007 Latest Caselaw 305 Bom

JUDGMENT

N.V. Dabholkar and M.G. Gaikwad, JJ.

1. Heard Advocate Mrs. Renuka Ghule for appellants and Advocate Mr. V.N. Upadhye for respondent No. 2. Advocate Mr. Upadhye has vehemently opposed admission of the first appeal.

2. This is a first appeal challenging the award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalna, while disposing of Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 134 of 2001, by its judgment and order dated 4.11.2003. Needless to say that being an appeal by the claimants, main grievance is regarding quantum of compensation.

3. With the help of the lawyers, we have gone through that part of the judgment, which pertains to the evidence regarding income of the deceased and computation of compensation towards loss of income of the family (claimants are legal heirs of the deceased). These details are available in para 8 of the judgment. Learned Member of the Tribunal has relied upon salary certificate produced at Exh. 58, which showed gross salary of deceased to be Rs. 5,846 per month. It also showed bifurcation of payments as follows:

  Basic pay                    Rs. 3,455
Special pay                  Rs.   160
Dearness allowance           Rs. 1,486
Washing allowance            Rs.    30
House rent allowance         Rs.   622
H.C.A.                       Rs.    18
T.P.T. allowance             Rs.    75

 

4. There were only two items of deductions from salary, i.e., Rs. 2,100 towards G.P.F. and Rs. 30 towards group insurance scheme. In fact, a copy of this salary certificate is available in the paperbook at page 34. Even on going through para 7 of the judgment, claimants pleaded the deceased to be a Head Constable, Radio Operator attached to Border Security Force and salary seems to be the only source of income. Although it was pleaded that total emoluments of the deceased were Rs. 7,977 per month, salary certificate produced spoke otherwise. Learned Member of Tribunal has accepted the salary certificate as it is. After deducting '/3rd amount for personal expenses, he has arrived at a conclusion that annual income of the deceased was Rs. 70,152, out of which Rs. 23,384 were required to be spared for personal expenses of the deceased and thus, for the family and legal representatives, loss of income was of Rs. 46,768. Taking into consideration age of the deceased to be 32 years, learned Member of Tribunal has taken multiplier of 17 and computed compensation payable to be Rs. 46,768 x 17 = Rs. 7,95,056. Further amount of Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium is also awarded.

4.1. Considering the fact that the gross salary income is taken as basis, and if the multiplier as available from the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is taken as it is, we find no room to consider enhancement of compensation, or payment of any further amount.

5. We, therefore, find no merits in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.