Vijender Singh Malik, J.@mdashThis is claimants'' appeal against the award dated 29.11.2010 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (for short, "the Tribunal") vide which a sum of Rs. 3,98,444/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount has been awarded. The claim petition has been brought by Kamaljit Kaur and others on the death of Jagdish Singh in a roadside accident that took place on 5.5.2009. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under:
Jagdish Singh had been an army pensioner. He died at the age of 54 years. He was getting Rs. 4,200/- per month as army pension besides which, he was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month by working with Legion Security Services, Patiala as a security guard. The claimants are his widow and two children. The aforesaid facts are denied by the respondents in their written statements.
Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that since Jagdish Singh died at the age of 54 years, some amount should have been added to his income in the name of future prospects. According to him, in
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that after the age of 50 years, no amount has to be added to the income of the deceased in the name of future prospects.
3. This is a case where the claim of the appellants that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month by working as security guard with Legion Security Services, Patiala has been disbelieved by the Tribunal for want of evidence therefor. He has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,300/- per month which he was receiving as pension. Applying a cut of 1/3rd thereto, he has multiplied the remainder with 12 to find out the annual dependency of the claimant as also with 11, the multiplier and has added to that amount a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of estate and another Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses. He thus, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,98,444/-.
4. Though, the deceased was said to be earning only pension, yet that pension also increases with time and this increase in the income is taken for the reason that in future, the income of the deceased increases. It cannot be said that in this case, the income would not have increased even though, the deceased was 54 years of age at the time of his death. At least 15% can be taken as increase over the monthly income of Rs. 4300/- to assess the monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of computing the compensation. Adding 15% of the income of the deceased to the same, I find a sum of Rs. 4,945/- per month as income of the deceased. To make it round figure, I take the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/-. Applying a cut of 1/3rd thereto and multiplying the remainder with 12, I find a sum of Rs. 40,000/- per annum the dependency of the claimants. Further multiplying the annual dependency with 11, I find a sum of Rs. 4,40,000/- as the amount lost by the claimants in the death of Jagdish Singh. Adding to it a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal in the name of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, I hold a sum of Rs. 4,60,000/- to be the compensation payable to the claimants on the death of Jagdish Singh. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals succeeds and is allowed. The amount of Rs. 3,98,444/- assessed by the Tribunal as compensation payable to the appellants is enhanced to Rs. 4,60,000/-. This amount shall be payable to the appellants with interest and in the proportion as allowed by the Tribunal.
