Delhi High Court
Smt. Geeta Laxmi And Ors. vs Sh. Ram Kumar And Ors. on 14 August, 2003
Equivalent citations: I (2004) ACC 632, 2005 ACJ 1571, 2003 VIAD Delhi 238, 2003 (70) DRJ 781
Author: S Mahajan
Bench: S Mahajan
JUDGMENT
S.K. Mahajan, J.
1. ADMIT.
2. With the consent of the parties, appeal has been heard and disposed of by this order.
3. The appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation for the death of Mr. T. Mohan Dass who died on 13.9.1996 because of the injuries sustained in a road accident caused by the rash and negligence driving by the driver of the offending truck. The grounds taken in the appeal for enhancement of compensation are: (1) the Tribunal has erred in not taking into account the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,500/- per month despite the evidence given by his employer before the tribunal; (2) the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased have not been taken into consideration; and (3) the correct multiplier has not been applied.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased at the time of accident was 31 years old and was having an income of Rs.5500/-. It is submitted that as per the Schedule -II to the Motor Vehicle Act the Tribunal ought not have applied the multiplier of 15 but should have applied the multiplier of 17. it is also contended that tribunal has not taken into account the future prospects in the life and carrier of the deceased to arrive at just compensation payable to his family. It is submitted that the Tribunal has clearly erred in not believing the statement of the employer of the deceased and has wrongly estimated his income at Rs.3,500/- per month as on the date of his death.
5. The deceased was working as a motor mechanic at the time of his death. While it is true that the employer of the deceased had appeared as a witness before the Tribunal and had stated that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.4,000/- per month and was also earning another sum of Rs.1,500/- per month from the work he was privately undertaking, however, there is no other evidence to support the statement of this witness. In case, the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.4,000/- there must have been some record maintained by the employer to show that such salary was being paid to the deceased every month. There was also no document or witness produced by the appellants before the Tribunal to support the plea that the deceased was earning another some of Rs.1,500/- per month from the job which he was allegedly permitted to undertake by the employer. Nothing has been stated by any of the witnesses as to what type of job was undertaken by the deceased and for whom. In the absence of any material before the Tribunal to support the evidence of the witneses produced before it, in my opinion, the Tribunal was justified in estimating the income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- per month.
6. The tribunal has, however, admittedly not taken into consideration the future prospect in the life and carrier of the deceased. It is now well settled that while assessing just compensation payable to the family of the deceased, the Tribunal is required to take into consideration the future prospects in the life and carrier of the deceased. The deceased at the time of death was of the age of 31 years. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased and applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Dixit Vs. Balwant Yadav , this court will not be in error in estimating the average gross income of the deceased at Rs.5,250/- per month i.e. 1 1/2 times the income at the time of his death. Deducting 1/3rd from this towards his personal expenses, the loss of dependency to the family would come to Rs.3,500/- per month or Rs.42,000/- per year. As per Schedule II to Motor Vehicle Act, in the case of persons between the age of 30 and 35 years, the courts should apply multiplier of 17 years to arrive at the just compensation payable to the family of the deceased. Applying the multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency to the family would come to Rs.7,14,000/-. Adding to this the conventional figure of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, etc., the appellants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.7,34,000/-.
7. I accordingly, allow this appeal and modify the award to the extent that the appellants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.7,34,000/- The appellants will also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of the application before the Tribunal till the date of payment. The compensation would be distributed amongst the members of the family as proposed by the Tribunal. Since appellant No.3, father of the deceased has already expired his share be given to his wife, appellant No.4. Appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
