JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal and D.G.R. Patnaik, JJ.
Page 2424
1. 3.11.2007 Since in both these appeals, common questions of law are involved, the same are being disposed by this common order.
2. The claimants are the appellants in both these appeals.
3. On 4.11.2000 the deceased Dr. Mahmood Alam along with his daughter Noor Shamshi was travelling in a bus known as ‘Pal Coach’ bearing registration No. BR 14P 5475. As the driver of the said bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner, the bus went outside the road and ultimately dashed against a road side tree near Khajo River in the district of Bokaro, as a result of which, many of the passengers including the deceased Dr. Mahmood Alam and his daughter received fatal injuries and died at the spot. The widow along with her minor children filed a Claim Case No. 16 of 2001 claiming compensation for the death of her husband Dr. Mahmood Alam. The widow also filed a separate claim case being Claim Case No. 17 of 2001 claiming compensation for the death of her daughter Noor Shamshi. Both the cases were Page 2425 taken together by the Tribunal and disposed of by the common judgment and Award, which is impugned in these two appeals.
4. So far as Dr. Mahmood Alam is concerned, the case of the claimant was that he was a Government servant working as Unani Chikitsa Padadhikari and was getting salary of Rs. 20,065/- per month and in support thereof, salary certificate was filed. The Tribunal held that at the time of his death, the basic salary of the deceased was Rs. 10,100/- and Dearness Allowance was Rs. 5,176/-. thus the total amount payable to the deceased was Rs. 15,276/-. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd out of the said amount and assessed the monthly dependency at Rs. 10,184/. The Tribunal finally multiplied the annual dependency by 6 years on the ground hat the deceased was 52 years of age and he would have continued in service up to 58 years. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 7,33,248/- was determined by way of compensation.
5. Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned judgment particularly the procedure of assessment of compensation adopted by the Tribunal as being wholly illegal and unjustified. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that the age of superannuation of the Government servant is 60 years and, therefore, the Tribunal has committed error of law in holding that the age of superannuation is 58 years and thereby adopted 6 years multiplier for the purpose of determining compensation. Learned Counsel further submitted that the total salary of the deceased was Rs. 20,065/- per month which was evident from the salary certificate. According to the learned Counsel, the amount which ought to have been left by way of standard deduction in the salary, shall not be more than Rs. 5,000/- Learned Counsel further submitted that the net income or the lake home salary, as determined by the Tribunal, is not on the basis of the settled principle of law.
6. Mrs. Nisha Thakur, learned Counsel for the respondent Insurance company, submitted that the Tribunal has rightly taken the net income as Rs. 15,276/- inasmuch as Rs. 20,065/- was the gross salary payable to the deceased.
7. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly taken the basic salary together with the D.A. for the purpose of determining the net salary payable to the deceased. Consequently, the Tribunal has rightly determined Rs. 1,22,208/- as annual dependency. However, the multiplier of 6 years of purchase, as taken by the Tribunal, is not justified for two reasons. Firstly, the age of superannuation of the Government employee is 60 years and secondly, the deceased was only aged 52 years. Now, if we take 8 years of purchase and multiply the same with annual dependency, the compensation amount comes to Rs. 9,77,664/-. In our view therefore, a sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- by way of compensation for the death of the deceased Dr. Mahmood Alam will meet the ends of justice and the same shall be just and reasonable compensation.
Accordingly, we enhance the compensation amount from Rs. 7,40,248/- to Rs. 9,50,000/-.
8. As noticed above, a separate claim application was filed by the widow, who is the mother of the deceased Noor Shamshi, with a claim of a sum of Rs. 3.00 lakhs by way of compensation. The deceased daughter of the claimant was aged 16 years. The case of the claimant was that she was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month by private tuition. However, the Tribunal held that not a single chit of paper was filed to show Page 2426 that the deceased Noor Shamshi was an educated girl and was earning by teaching students as a private teacher. In the aforesaid findings, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs. 75,000/- by way of compensation. We are of the view that the compensation awarded on account of the death of a 16 years educated girl is much in lower side. Even assuming that there was no evidence about her earning, the Tribunal ought to have taken notional annual income of Rs. 15.000/- and multiply the annual dependency by 15 years of purchase. Although, the claimant has claimed Rs. 3.00 lakhs by way of compensation, in our view, a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- shall be just and reasonable. We therefore, hold that the claimant is entitled to get Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of compensation for the death of her daughter Noor Shamshi. Both the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the Award.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, these two appeals are allowed and the compensation amount is enhanced in the manner indicated herein above.