JUDGMENT
R.B. Misra, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Deb, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Debnath, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, National Insurance Co. Ltd.
2. This first appeal has been preferred against the award dated 31.1.1998 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (M.A.C.) No. 84 of 1996 whereby the claim on behalf of the appellant wife under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short called ‘the Act’) for compensation in reference to the death of her husband late Satish Chandra Bhattacharjee in an accident occurred on 8.1.1996 at 8 a.m. at a place near Care and Cure Nursing Home on Jagannath Bari Road, Agartala, West Tripura, by a jeep bearing No. TR 01-2571 being driven rashly and negligently. On death of Satish Chandra Bhattacharjee, four major dependants (sons) and wife were left behind as surviving members.
3. The owner of the vehicle as well as National Insurance Co. Ltd. objected the claim of the appellant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (in short called ‘the Tribunal’). However, on perusing the materials on record and evidences given by the witnesses the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:
(i) Whether any accident occurred on 8.1.1996 at about 8 a.m. at Jagannath Bari Road near Care and Cure Nursing Home due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of jeep bearing No. TR 01-2571?
(ii) Whether in any such accident Satish Chandra Bhattacharjee died?
(iii) Whether the claimant-petitioner is entitled to get compensation as prayed for and if so, what should be the proper quantum?
(iv) Who is liable to pay compensation, if any, awarded?
The Tribunal also analysed the evidences of the witnesses Madhabilata Bhattacharjee, appellant, PW 1; Rajib Kumar Sinha, PW 2 and keeping in view the contents of the F.I.R. and the claim of the salary of the deceased as Rs. 5,503 (in the pay scale of Rs. 1,450-Rs. 3,710) total amount of Rs. 2,38,000 was awarded as compensation against the claim of Rs. 6,89,000 made for and on behalf of the appellant.
4. According to learned Counsel for the appellants, the salary in revised scale from 1.1.1996 was to be taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal for the purpose of awarding compensation and not only the salary of Rs. 5,503 per month being paid to the deceased at the time of death, however, taking even the salary Rs. 5,503 per month the correct multiplier and loss of annual dependency has not been calculated properly in view of guidelines provided by the Apex Court in U.P. State Road Trans. Corporation v. Trilok Chandra .
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Only dispute is to adjudicate in respect of calculating the amount of compensation in the facts and circumstances, as these are not in dispute. The submissions on taking revised pay scale at the time of death of the deceased cannot be considered as no pleading to that effect has been made in the memo of appeal. While applying the formula indicated in para 15 of Trilok Chandra , we find that taking the salary of Rs. 5,503 per month of the deceased and taking that five (5) members were left behind as surviving members, total unit including the deceased would be 12 and dividing Rs. 5,503 by 12 and taking the double unit Rs. 920 would come the amount, spent by the deceased per month. Taking Rs. 180 as an estimated personal pocket expenses being spent per month, total deducible amount shall come to Rs. 920 + Rs. 180 : Rs. 1,100 and exact amount comes to (Rs. 5,503 – Rs. 1,100) x 12 : Rs. 52,836. The annual dependency by applying the multiplier keeping in view the age of 54 years of deceased the appropriate amount of compensation would be Rs. 52,836 x 11 : Rs. 5,81,196. Now adding funeral expenses Rs. 10,000, total comes to Rs. 5,91,196, the exact amount to be awarded. This amount has to be paid to the appellants after deducting the earlier paid amount to the appellants at the rate of 9 per cent interest per annum with effect from the date of claim petition up to the date of payment.
In view of the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.