UNREPORTED
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 99/1995
KUSAM SINGH & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Mahendra Singh, Advocate
versus
RAJ KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. K.L.Nandwani, Advocate
for the respondent No.3
Mr. J.N.Aggarwal, Advocate
for the respondent No.4.
% Date of Decision : May 27, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
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?
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants for enhancement of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by its judgment and award dated FAO No.99/1995 Page 1 of 8 12.01.1995 passed in Suit No.157 of 1987, whereby and whereunder, the appellants were held entitled to an award of ` 3,84,000/ with interest thereon, for the untimely demise of Sh. Vijay Vir Singh (hereinafter referred as "the deceased" ) in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 7.3.1987.
2. The brief facts relevant for the decision in the present case are that on the date of the accident the deceased was aged 35 years and was working as a teacher (Trained Graduate Teacher) at Government Co-Education Senior Secondary School, Rashtrapati Bhawan on a salary of Rs 2,345/-per month. On his accidental death, a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the widow, parents and two minor children of the deceased, who are the appellants No.1 to 5 herein. The Claims Tribunal for the purpose of calculating the compensation, after considering the evidence led in this behalf and after referring to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Others 1994 ACJ 1, took the salary of the deceased to be in sum of FAO No.99/1995 Page 2 of 8 ` 3,000/- per month after considering the future prospects of advancement of the deceased in his career. Deducting therefrom, one-third of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses, the learned Tribunal arrived at a sum of ` 2,000 as the monthly loss of dependency of the claimants or ` 24,000/- as their annual loss of dependency. To the aforesaid multiplicand, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16, thereby calculating the total compensation awardable to the appellants to be in the sum of ` 3,84,000/- (including ` 15,000/- awarded as interim compensation) along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the award amount.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the aforesaid computation of compensation awarded to the appellants on the following three grounds:
(i) The Claims Tribunal wrongly calculated the income of the deceased to be in the sum of ` 3,000/- per month after considering his future prospects.
FAO No.99/1995 Page 3 of 8
(ii) The Claims Tribunal wrongly deducted one-third towards the personal expenses of the deceased in view of the fact that the deceased had left behind five dependant family members.
(iii) The Claims Tribunal awarded no compensation towards non-
pecuniary damages under the heads of loss of love and affection, loss of estate of the deceased, loss of consortium and towards the pecuniary damages for the funeral expenses of the deceased.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4, on his part, sought to support the award passed by the learned Tribunal. According to him, the impugned award was passed on the basis of documentary evidence on record and no modification thereto was warranted either on facts or in law.
5. As regards the first submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, it is evident from the record that the deceased was working in Government Co-Education Senior Secondary School, Rashtrapati Bhawan, as a Trained Graduate Teacher (T.G.T). PW10 Sh. Parduman Singh, the Principal of M.L. Govt Boys Senior FAO No.99/1995 Page 4 of 8 Secondary School deposed that he remained in the school of the deceased as P.G.T. from 16.07.1984 to 30.04.1989 and proved on record the salary certificate of the deceased as Ex.PW10/A. As per the said certificate, the basic pay of the deceased on the date of the accident was ` 1,750/- per month and his total salary was ` 2,345/- per month.
6. PW1 Raj Kumar Jain, a P.G.T. teacher in Government Senior Secondary School, in his testimony, deposed as regards the future prospects of the deceased, and stated that the deceased was due for promotion as a Post Graduate Teacher (P.G.T) which is done in a routine manner, as he was well qualified. The witness, to prove the educational qualifications of the deceased, placed on record his mark sheets of M.Sc and B.Ed from Agra University pertaining to the years 1974 and 1975 respectively.
7. The law as regards the computation of future prospects of a victim of a road accident is now well settled by the Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC FAO No.99/1995 Page 5 of 8 121, which is to the effect that as a rule of thumb where the deceased has a permanent job and is below 40 years of age, an addition of 50% of actual salary is to be made to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects. In this case, the deceased at the time of his death was 35 years of age and was in a regular and stable job. Thus, in my view, future prospects to the extent of 50% ought to have been granted by the learned Tribunal while computing the loss of dependency of the appellants.
8. As regards the second submission of the learned counsel of the appellants that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting one-third of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses in view of the fact that the deceased had left behind five dependent family members who had filed the claim petition in the first instance, it has been clearly laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) that the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased has to be one-fourth in case there are 4 to 6 dependent family members. Since there were five dependants of the deceased at the time of the filing of the petition (though the father of the deceased died on FAO No.99/1995 Page 6 of 8 18.1.1995 and the mother of the deceased too died during the pendency of the appeal), while calculating the loss of dependency of the claimants, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted one-fourth of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses instead of one-third.
9. The necessary corollary is that the compensation payable to the appellants must be re-computed in accordance with the aforesaid findings. Taking the income of the deceased to be in the sum of ` 2,345/- per month and adding thereto 50% towards the future prospects of the deceased, the monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of computing loss of dependency of the claimants comes to ` 3,517/- per month. After deducting therefrom one- fourth towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency of the appellants comes to ` 2,637.75 per month or say ` 31,653/- per annum. Applying the multiplier of 16 thereto, which multiplier is not the subject matter of controversy, the total loss of dependency of the appellants works out to ` 5,06,448/-. In addition to this sum, non-pecuniary damages in the sum of ` 2,000/- towards FAO No.99/1995 Page 7 of 8 funeral expenses, ` 2,500/- towards the loss of estate, ` 5,000/- towards loss of consortium and ` 7,500/- towards the loss of love and affection, that is, in all ` 17,000/- are also awarded to the appellants.
10. The appellants are accordingly held entitled to receive a sum of ` 5,23,448/- rounded off to ` 5,23,500/- with interest as awarded by the Claims Tribunal from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., 19.08.1987 till the date of realisation. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid to the appellants by the respondents within 30 days of the receipt of this order by depositing the same in this Court.
11. The appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
A copy of this order be sent to the respondents by the Registry forthwith to ensure compliance.
REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) May 27, 2011 FAO No.99/1995 Page 8 of 8