Delhi High Court
Mohd. Khalil And Anr. vs Haryana Roadways And Ors. on 5 August, 2003
Equivalent citations: III (2003) ACC 362, 2004 ACJ 1971, 2004 IAD Delhi 301, 107 (2003) DLT 56
Author: S Mahajan
Bench: S Mahajan
JUDGMENT
S.K. Mahajan, J.
1. ADMIT.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.
3. The appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation for the death of their son on 13.1.2000 in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus owned by respondent no.1 and being driven by respondent no.3. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has not correctly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as it has not taken into consideration the future prospects in his life and career and has also not applied the correct multiplier.
4. The deceased at the time of his death was 25 years of age and was unmarried. The father of the deceased, namely, appellant no.1 was stated to be 56 years of age whereas the mother/appellant no.2 was 50 years of age. Though, it was alleged in the application claiming compensation that the deceased was having an income of Rs.4500/- per month, however, there being no proof of the income of the deceased. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased at the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in January, 2000. Adding to this the minimum wage payable to a skilled worker in January, 2002, and dividing the same by two, the Tribunal took the average monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.2894/-. Considering the fact that the deceased was unmarried and would have married in near future, had he been alive, the loss of dependency to the appellants was considered to be 1/3rd of the income of the deceased and applying a multiplier of ten, the total compensation of Rs.1,15,680/- was directed to be paid to the appellants.
5. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the father of the appellant was 55 years of age and mother being 50 years of age, the Tribunal ought to have applied a multiplier of 13 in terms of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and the Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of ten. It is also alleged that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the average monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2984/-. It is submitted that the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker as on 1.8.2002, were Rs.3,103/- and since, the multiplier of 13 was to be applied in the present case, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the minimum wages payable at least on the expiry of the period of 13 years and then arrive at the average income of the deceased. It is submitted that the Tribunal has thus clearly erred in not only in taking the average income at Rs.2984/- but also in applying the multiplier of 10 to the loss of dependency.
6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material on record and I find merit in the contention of the appellants. The deceased had expired on 13.1.2000. The minimum wages payable to a skilled worker as on that day were Rs.2772/-, however, within a period of two years because of the rise in inflation and cost of living index the minimum wages of a skilled worker as on 1.8.2002 had gone up to Rs.3103/- per month which is almost 15% more than the minimum wage payable as on the date of accident. This Court would, therefore, not be in error in estimating that the deceased would have been getting maximum of the minimum wages at Rs.5,000/- per month after 13 years of his death. Adding this to Rs.2772/- and dividing the same by two, the average income of the deceased would come to Rs.3885/- per month. Since the loss of dependency to the parents of the deceased has been taken as 1/3rd of the income of the deceased, the loss of dependency to the appellants would come to Rs.1295/- per month or say Rs.1300/- per month. The father of the deceased was admittedly 56 years of age while the mother was 50 years of age, in my opinion, since the mother of the deceased was 50 years of age, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 13 to arrive at just compensation payable to them for the death of their son. Applying the multiplier of 13 the amount payable by way of loss of dependency to the parents would come to Rs.2,02,800/-. Adding to this the conventional figure of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, loss of estate etc., the total compensation to which the appellants would be entitled comes to Rs.2,17,800/-.
7. I, accordingly, allow this appeal by modifying the impugned award and direct the respondents to pay total compensation of Rs.2,17,800/- to the appellants. The appellants will also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing the application before the Tribunal till the date of payment.
