Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And ... vs Smt. Ram Dulari And Ors. on 18 November, 2003
Author: S Mahajan
Bench: S Mahajan
JUDGMENT
S.K. Mahajan, J.
1. This order will dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal only on the ground of quantum as well as the cross-objections being CM No. 4510/1996 filed by the respondents-claimants for enhancement of compensation.
2. By an order dated 2.5.2003, this court had directed the tribunal to record evidence on the point of income of the deceased in the light of the application for additional evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, states that he does not wish to lead any additional evidence and he will be satisfied if this court on the basis of the evidence on record, assesses the income of the deceased after applying the principles laid down in Sarla Dixit and another Versus Balwant Yadav and others 1996 ACJ 581 and he does not want this case to be sent to the tribunal for recording of evidence.
FAO No. 143/1995
3. The appellants have filed this appeal only on the ground of quantum. Though the insured has been made a party in the appeal, however, neither the same is signed by the insured nor any vakalat has been issued in favor of the counsel to appear on his behalf. In this view of the matter, the appeal on behalf of the insured/respondent No. 2 is not maintainable. Since the appeal filed by the insurance company is only on the ground of quantum, the same in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Nicolletta Rohtagi & Ors. 2002 (3) ACJ 1950 will also not be maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Cross-Objections No. 4510/1996
4. In so far as the cross-objections of the respondents-claimants are concerned, the only point urged by them is that the tribunal has not taken into consideration the allowances which the deceased was getting along with the salary and the same should have been added to the income of the deceased and that the correct multiplier has not been applied in accordance with the age of the deceased. It is submitted that in terms of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the correct multiplier to be applied was 18 in place of 14 applied by the tribunal.
5. I find merits in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant inasmuch as besides the pay of Rs. 1720/- which the deceased was getting at the time of the accident, he was also getting certain allowances like free ration of the value of Rs. 300/- per month, free clothing of the maximum of Rs. 2,000/- per year, free accommodation, electricity and water, free conveyance for self, family and dependents as well as free washing allowance and cash in lieu of RUM. All these benefits if taken together with the pay will make the income of the deceased about Rs. 3,000/- per month. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Dixit and another Versus Balwant Yadav and others 1996 ACJ 581 the average income of the deceased can thus be taken at Rs. 4,500/- per month.
6. The deceased had three minor children besides his wife and parents to support. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Versus Trilok Chandra 1996 ACJ 831 the family can be divided into units taking two units for each of the adult member of the family and one unit for each of the minor child. The family would thus comprise of 11 units and the amount which the deceased might be spending on himself towards personal expenses would come to Rs. 4,500 x 2/11 = Rs. 820/- per month. The loss of dependency to the family would thus come to Rs. 3,680/- per month or say Rs. 44,160/- per year. The deceased was 28 years of age at the time of his death. Applying, therefore, the multiplier of 18 in terms of Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the total loss of dependency to the family would come to Rs. 7,95,240/-. Adding to this, the non-pecuniary damages of Rs. 14,760/- towards loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses, etc., the total compensation payable to the appellants would come to Rs. 8,10,000/-.
7. I, accordingly, allow the cross-objections filed by the respondents/claimants, modify the award and direct that respondents 1 to 4, 6 and 7 would be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 8,10,000/-. The said respondents/claimants 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 payment.
8. Out of the total compensation of Rs. 8,10,000/-, the widow-respondent No. 1 shall be paid Rs. 4 lakhs, the three children of the deceased would get Rs. 1 lakhs each and the parents of the deceased would get Rs. 55,000/- each with the proportionate interest thereon. The share of the minor be kept in a fixed deposit for a period till he attains majority.
