Jagrati Devi vs Gulfam
2006 Latest Caselaw 1650 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed for enhancement of compensation awarded vide award dated 16th April, 2004 on the death of Mr. Mahabir Singh. Mr. Mahabir Singh who expired on 24th October, 1999 was 52 years of age at the time.

2. Mr. Mahabir Singh was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector with Delhi Police and was earning Rs. 9,641/- per month. Learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 7,52,400/- on account of loss of dependency and has awarded Rs. 25,000/- for mental pain and agony, Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium. In all payment of Rs. 7,92,400/- has been awarded and interest @ 7% has also been awarded.

3. While awarding compensation learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 11.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that while awarding compensation learned Tribunal has not taken into account future prospects and increase in income. He also submits that non-pecuniary damages of Rs. 40,000/- are on lower side. Lastly, it is submitted that the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd from the total income of the deceased towards personal expenses, while calculating loss of dependency.

5. As per Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses is normally deducted while calculating loss of dependency. This deduction is made as compensation is paid for loss of dependency i.e. loss to the dependents and, therefore, necessarily the expenditure that the deceased was incurring on himself should be reduced from his income. Everyone incurs expenditure to sustain himself. Deceased was 52 years of age at the time of accident/death. I do not think learned Tribunal was wrong in deducting 1/3rd from his total income, towards personal expenses. Similarly, keeping in view the age of the deceased, I do not think future prospects or increase in income was required to be taken into consideration. The deceased was to retire at the age of 58 years i.e. within the next six years. Moreover, I do find that Tribunal has applied multiplier of 11, which is on the higher side. Keeping in view the total amount awarded to the appellants, the award is just, fair and reasonable.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.