* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 07.04.2010
Date of Order: 18th May, 2010
FAO No. 115/1997 & CM Applications No. 3433-3434/2010
% 18.5.2010
Surajmukhi & Ors. ... Appellants
Through: Mr. M.B.Singh, Advocate
Versus
Ashok Kumar & Anr. ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate for R-2
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
By the present appeal, appellants have sought enhancement in compensation as awarded to the appellants under Section 110- A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by the Tribunal.
2. The deceased who died out of accident on the night of 20/21 October, 1984 was aged 41 years and working as Assistant Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police at a monthly salary of Rs.1239.30/-. He left behind wife, three children and his parents. One of his daughters Smt. Anita Kumari was already married and was not dependent upon him although she was arrayed as a claimant. The learned Tribunal while computing compensation considered that a sum of Rs.439.30/- would be the amount being spent by deceased on his own upkeep and took the monthly dependency as Rs.800/- p.m. The learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 11 in this case and arrived at a compensation payable to the LRs of deceased as Rs.1,05,600/-. It is submitted by Counsel for the appellant FAO No. 115/1997 & CM Applications No. 3433-3434/2010 Page 1 of 3 that deduction on self maintenance was wrongly taken even more than 1/3rd, while the deceased was having more than four dependents. The Tribunal also took into consideration a low multiplier of 11 whereas multiplier of 14 should have been taken into account.
3. It is undisputed that deceased left behind a widow, two dependent children (since one daughter was married) and his aged parents. Mother of the deceased would also for all intents and purposes be considered as dependent on the son in view of the advancing age of the father of the deceased. Thus, the number of dependents of the deceased in this case was four. Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. 2009 ACJ 1298, the Supreme Court laid down a rule of thumb for calculating compensation. The deduction towards personal expenses in case where dependents were 4-6 should be 1/4th of the salary. Considering the salary of the deceased as Rs.1239/-, I consider that around 1/4th i.e. Rs.309/- would have been proper deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased and monthly dependency should be considered as Rs.1239/- - Rs.309/- = Rs.930/- p.m. Since the deceased was working in Delhi Police, he was bound to have regular increments and his future career would have progressed with time and in view of judgment of Sarla Verma's case, his age being 41 years 30% should have been added towards the future prospects. Thus, a sum of Rs.279/- should have been added towards future prospects. The proper multiplier as per Sarla Verma's case would be 14. Thus the claimants would have been entitled to a compensation of Rs.(930+279) X 12 X 14 = Rs. 2,03,112/-. The dependants have also not been awarded compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. I award Rs.5000/- each for loss of estate and loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- as funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation, the claimants should have been awarded would come to Rs.2,03,112/- + Rs.12,000/- = Rs.2,15,112/-. The award of the learned Tribunal FAO No. 115/1997 & CM Applications No. 3433-3434/2010 Page 2 of 3 is accordingly modified and it is held that the appellants would be entitled to compensation of Rs.2,15,112/- instead of Rs.1,05,600/- in the same proportion
4. It is argued by the Counsel for the insurance company that the liability of insurance company was limited to Rs.1,50,000/- in this case since the insurance policy issued by the insurance company was "Act only" policy. The policy as issued by insurance company was proved before the Tribunal as Exh. RW-1/8 and this policy would show that basic premium of Rs.200/- was charged and insured sum value was written as "Act only". Thus, the liability of the insurance company would be limited to Rs.1,50,000/- only and the insurance company would be liable to pay Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest thereon while the rest of the amount would be claimable from the owner of the truck. The award of Tribunal is modified.
5. The appellants are held entitled to compensation of Rs.2,15,112/- instead of Rs.1,05,600/-. The interest @ 12% on the amount as awarded by the Tribunal and 7% on the enhanced compensation from the date of award i.e. 20.1.1997. The insurance company would be liable to pay additional amount within its limited liability of Rs.1,50,000/- plus interest thereon and the remaining amount would be recoverable from the owner of vehicle i.e. respondent no.1.
With this the appeal stands disposed of.
May 18, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
FAO No. 115/1997 & CM Applications No. 3433-3434/2010 Page 3 of 3