* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 18th January, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 265/2010
KAMLA DEVI & ORS ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Anil Goel, Advocate.
versus
PREM KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Barkha Babbar, Adv. for
UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellants who are legal heirs of the deceased Satypal Gupta @ Satpal Gupta, who died in an accident which took place on 03.04.2001, seek enhancement of compensation of Rs.2,37,680/- awarded the Tribunal by order dated 05.03.2009.
2. The contentions raised on behalf of the Appellants are:-
(i) The deceased's income was established to be Rs. 6,000/-
to Rs. 9,000/- per month, but his salary was taken as per the minimum wages.
(ii) The multiplier of '8' was low as against '11' as suggested in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & MAC APP 265/2010 Page 1 of 6 Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.
(iii) One-third of the deceased's income was deducted towards the personal and living expenses though the legal representatives of the deceased were five and, therefore, the deduction towards the personal and living expenses should have been one-sixth.
3. The Appellants in the Claim Petition averred that the deceased was having income of Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs. 9,000/- as overtime. They examined PW-2 Naresh Gupta, who was working as General Manager in the Hindustan Times. The witness deposed that the deceased was getting an average income between Rs.6,000/- to Rs.9,000/- per month. This testimony of PW-2 was not challenged by putting any question in cross-examination.
4. The Tribunal fell into error in taking the minimum wages of an unskilled worker under the Minimum Wages Act. In view of the unchallenged testimony of PW-2 who was a Senior Officer working in the Hindustan Times, there was no conceivable reason not to accept his testimony.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 laid down the following principles for grant of compensation in death cases:-
"I. MULTIPLIER MAC APP 265/2010 Page 2 of 6 Age of the Multiplier deceased (in years) 15-20 18 21-25 18 26-30 17 31-35 16 36-40 15 41-45 14 46-50 13 51-55 11 56-60 09 61-65 07 Above 65 05 II. DEDUCTION FOR PERSONAL AND LIVING EXPENSES Deceased - unmarried (i) Deduction towards personal expenses. : 1/2 (50%) (ii) Deduction where the family of the
bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased.
: 1/3rd (33.33%)
Deceased - married
(i) 2 to 3 dependent family members. : 1/3rd
(ii) 4 to 6 dependent family members : 1/4th
(iii) More than 6 family members : 1/5th
(iv) Subject to the evidence to the
contrary. : Father, brother and
sisters will not be
considered as
dependents.
MAC APP 265/2010 Page 3 of 6
III. FUTURE PROSPECTS
(i) Permanent job : Actual salary - tax + 50%
Below 40 years of age towards future prospects.
(ii) Permanent job : Actual salary - tax + 30%
Between 40-50 years towards future prospects.
(iii) More than 50 years with: Actual salary only.
permanent job. No addition for future
prospects.
(iv) Deceased employed at a fixed: Only actual income to be
Salary (without provision for taken. No addition. Annual increments)"
6. The deceased left behind five Appellants i.e. the widow, aged about 53 years, a married daughter and three adult sons. No evidence was produced that the Appellants No. 2 to 5 were financially dependents on the deceased. In the absence of any evidence in this regard, only the Appellant No.1 is to be treated as dependant, particularly, when the deceased was aged about 55 years. Applying the ratio of Sarla Verma (supra) 50% has to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased; the multiplier of '11' would be appropriate as the deceased was aged about 55 years. At this age, the grown up sons should have helped the deceased instead of being dependant on him.
7. I would take the deceased income to be Rs. 6,000/- per month.
The loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,96,000/- (6,000/- - 50% MAC APP 265/2010 Page 4 of 6 x 11 x 12).
8. In addition, the Appellant No.1 is entitled to a sum of Rs.
10,000/- towards the loss of consortium, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The overall compensation works out as Rs. 4,56,000/-.
9. Thus, the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 2,37,680/- to Rs.
4,56,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment.
10. Out of the enhanced amount a sum of Rs.10,000/- each along with the proportionate interest shall be payable to Appellants No. 2 to 5. Rest of the amount along with the proportionate interest shall be payable to Appellant No.1.
11. The Respondent No.3 Union of India is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest within 30 days. It goes without saying that the Appellants would be entitled to deduct TDS, if any, as per the provisions of Income Tax Act. The amount payable to the Appellants No. 2 to 5 shall be released forthwith.
12. 60% of the amount payable to Appellant No.1 shall be kept in fixed Deposits in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi for a period of three years. Rest of the amount shall be MAC APP 265/2010 Page 5 of 6 released to her.
13. The Appeal is allowed in above terms. No costs.
14. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE JANUARY 18, 2012 vk MAC APP 265/2010 Page 6 of 6