* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC APP No. 214-18/2006
Reserved on: 28.09.2011
Date of Order: 01.11.2011
RAJBALA & ORS. ...... Appellant
Through: Mr.Ashok Popli, Advocate.
Versus
MAHESH KUMAR AND ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be -Yes
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? -Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? -Yes
M.L. MEHTA, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 24.11.2005 of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟ for short). Vide the impugned award a compensation of `14,83,520/-, which was rounded to figure of `14,84,000/-, was granted to the appellant/ claimants on account of death of Rajinder Singh, who died in a road accident which took place on 2.2.05. The deceased was employed as Head Constable with Delhi Police. The compensation was made up of `14,33,520/- MAC APPEAL No.214-18/2006 Page 1 of 6 on account of financial loss of dependency of the claimants and `50,000/- on account of funeral expenses, pain & sufferings, loss of love & affection, loss of consortium and loss of estate.
2. The appellants have assailed the impugned award alleging the awarded compensation on account of financial loss of dependency of the claimants to be on lower side. The point urged in the present appeal is that the learned Tribunal had applied multiplier of 11 which was on much lower side. It was submitted that keeping in view the age of deceased, the multiplier which was applicable was 14 and not 11. It was also submitted that the deceased left behind as many as five dependants and that being so, 1/4th of his income ought to have been deducted as towards his personal and living expenditure instead of 1/3rd as has been done by the Tribunal. To buttress these submissions reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sarla Verma and Others v Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [AIR 2009 SC 3104]. The fluid situation of the courts and Tribunal applying different multipliers and making different deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). This was not disputed by learned counsel for the MAC APPEAL No.214-18/2006 Page 2 of 6 respondent No. 3/insurance company. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced here as under:
"14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one- fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.
21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
3. In view of the above judgment, the age of the deceased being 45 years, the multiplier of 14 was to be applied instead of
11. Likewise, since the deceased left behind 5 dependants, 1/4th MAC APPEAL No.214-18/2006 Page 3 of 6 of his income was to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses instead of 1/3rd. That being the position of law, the Tribunal, apparently, seems to have erred in applying the multiplier of 11 and also in making deduction of 1/3rd of the income of deceased towards his personal and living expenses. Consequently, the award needs modification.
4. The income of the deceased which was arrived at by the Tribunal as `1,95,480/- per annum has not been disputed or challenged by the respondents. After making deduction of 1/4th towards personal and living expenses out of this annual income of `1,95,480/- of the deceased, net annual financial loss of the dependants comes out to be `1,46,610/- [`1,95,480/- (-) `48,870/- (1/4th of `1,95,480/-)]. Applying the proper multiplier of 14 to the same, the total dependency loss of the appellants/ claimants comes out to be `20,52,540/- (`1,95,480/- x 14).
5. In this manner of calculations, the appellant would be entitled to enhanced compensation of `6,19,020/- [`20,52,540/- (-) `14,33,520/-]. Consequently, the appellants are entitled to this enhanced compensation amount of `6,19,020/-. Respondent No. 3, being the insurer of the offending vehicle, is liable to pay this enhanced compensation amount to the appellants. MAC APPEAL No.214-18/2006 Page 4 of 6
6. Appellant No. 1 is the widow of deceased and others are sons, daughter and father of the deceased. The children of the deceased have attained majority now. Appellant No. 3 Miss Sonia is daughter of the deceased and is of marriageable age. Hence, out of the enhanced amount, a sum of`2,00,000/- shall be paid to Ms. Sonia which amount will be invested in Fixed Deposit in her name and the FDR will be entitled to be encashed only at the time of her marriage or in case of some emergent need or occasion. Out of the balance enhanced compensation amount, a sum of `2,00,000/- shall be paid to the widow of the deceased i.e. the appellant No. 1 and `50,000/- shall be paid to appellant No. 4 Jai Lal i.e. the father of the deceased and the balance/remaining amount of the enhanced compensation shall be shared by appellant No. 2 and appellant No. 4 i.e. Anil Kumar and Sunil Kumar, the two sons of the deceased. The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation within 30 days from today. After 30 days, the amount shall be payable with simple interest of 7.5% per annum from today till realization. Amounts payable to appellant No. 1, 2 and 4 shall also be invested in FDR in their respective names for a period of two years. The FDRs shall not have any facility of loan and advances. However, if the appellants so desire, they may be allowed to withdraw monthly or MAC APPEAL No.214-18/2006 Page 5 of 6 quarterly interest earned on the FDRs. The investments shall be made in some nationalized bank.
7. The appeal stands disposed of.
M.L. MEHTA (JUDGE) November 01, 2011 awanish MAC APPEAL No.214-18/2006 Page 6 of 6