Satyawati Sethi And Ors. vs Subhash Chand And Ors.
1987 Latest Caselaw 121 Del

JUDGMENT

S.B. Wad, J.

1. In an accident which took place on 16-11-74, three members of the family died, viz. Rakesh Sethi, aged about 21-1/2 years his brother Narender Kumar Sethi, aged about 34 years; and his wife Persanta Sethi, aged about 31 years. Three claim petitions were filed by the claimants.

In the first case, i.e. of Rakesh Sethi, the claimants were the parents. In the second case, i.e. of Narender Kumar Sethi, the claimants are the parents as well as his three children--two sons and one daughter. In the third case, i.e. of Persanta Sethi, the claimants are three children, i.e. two sons and one daughter. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 6,900/- in the case of the death of Rakesh Sethi; Rs. 79,020/- in the case of the death of Narender Kumar Sethi; and Rs. 1,29,870/- in the case of the death of Persanta Sethi. The Tribunal had held that M/s. New India Assurance Company was liable to pay the compensation. The Insurance Company had filed the appeals against the said awards in this Court, but those appeals were dismissed by me on 10-12-1986, as having no substance.

The claimants have, however, preferred the appeals for enhancement of compensation. FAO 235/80 relates to the death of Rakesh Sethi; FAO 236/80 to the death of Mr. Narender Kumar Sethi; and FAO 237/80 to the death of Smt. Persanta Sethi. The only question to be examined in these appeals is the adequacy of compensation.

One fact to be noted in these three appeals is that the claimants are common and the benefit of compensation awarded in each of these cases will be a cumulative benefit for all the claimants. It is unfortunate that three young members of the family died in the accident, but it can also not be overlooked that the claimants will get the benefit of the cumulative sum. I will now deal separately with each of the appeals:

FAO 235/80

2. Here the claimants are the parents The Tribunal has taken the multiplier of seven years, speculating that the parents would live for another seven years only and would be required to be looked after. The accident took place in 1974 and as of today the parents are still alive. The father is 75 years old and the mother is 71 years old. It is not unreasonable to expect that they will live for another two years. Therefore, a multiplier of 15 would be quite reasonable in this case. The income of Rakesh Sethi at the time of his death was Rs. 198/- per month. The Tribunal has erred in deducting Rs. 98/- towards the expenses of Rakesh Sethi. I had been consistently taking the view that where the income is in the nature of the minimum wages or less, there should be very marginal deduction, if at all. I, therefore, hold that it can be assumed that Rakesh Sethi was contributing a sum of Rs. 150/-per month for the maintenance of his parents. Taking the multiplier at 15, the compensation payable would be Rs. 27,000/-. The claimants are also entitled to 9 per cent simple interest from the date of application till the date of realisation.

FAO 236/80

Narender Kumar Sethi was 34 years old at the time of his death and his monthly income was Rs. 800/- per month. The Tribunal has erred in deducting Rs. 300/- p.m. on account of personal expenses of Narender Kumar Sethi, because he had a family of three children and parents to be supported. The personal expenses of Narender Kumar Sethi, therefore, cannot be more than Rs. 200/- per month. That leaves Rs. 600/- per month towards his contribution to the family. He was only 34 years old and was in private employment. Assuming that the age of retirement was 55, a multiplier of 21 is a safe multiplier. The claimants in this appeal are, therefore, entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,55,200/-. I am not making any deductions by way of lump sum for the simple reason that I have not considered the rise in the salary which the deceased would have got if he had served for another 21 years. Lump sum deductions are not to be made because the said amount would be neutralised by the rise in prices. The Tribunal has erred in making certain deductions from the amount payable. Such deductions are not tenable in law. The claimants would also be entitled to 9 per cent simple interest from the date of application till the date of realisation.

FAO 237/80

Persanta Sethi was 31 years old and a graduate at the time of her death. She was working in the Industrial Finance Corporation and her salary was Rs. 1,255/- per month. Here again the Tribunal has fallen in error in deducting a sum of Rs. 400/- per month on personal expenses. I do not think that the personal expenses of the deceased would be more than Rs. 255/- per month considering the responsibilities of the family. Her contribution to the family can, therefore, safely be taken to be Rs. 1,000/- per month. It has come in evidence that the age of retirement in Industrial Finance Corporation is 58. She was only 31 years old at the time of her death and so the multiplier of 27 co-terminus with her age of retirement, would be reasonable in this case. The claimants in this appeal would, therefore, be entitled to Rs. 3,24,000/- towards compensation. In this case also some deductions are made by the Tribunal which are not tenable in law. I do not think that any deductions should be made on account of the lump sum payment because I have not taken into account the further rise in the salary which the deceased would have got if she would have continued in service for another 27 years and also because of the fact of the price rise. The claimants would also be entitled to 9 per cent simple interest from the date of application till the date of realisation.

Some amounts towards compensation have been paid by the Insurance Company to the claimants. The Insurance Company would be entitled to get credit for the said amount as well as the interest thereon The Insurance Company shall draw up the cheques for the balance of the compensation amount and the interest and deposit the same with the Registrar of this Court within two months from today. The Registrar shall summon the parties and disburse the amount after due notice.

3. The appeals are partly allowed. On the facts of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.