Delhi High Court
Smt.Murti Devi & Ors. vs Sh Raj Kumar & Ors. on 20 April, 2009
Author: Kailash Gambhir
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO No. 433/2002
Judgment reserved on 11.2.2008
Judgment delivered on: 20.4.2009
Smt. Murti Devi & Ors. ..... Appellants.
Through: Mr. Y R Sharma, Adv.
versus
Shri Raj Kumar & Ors.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shobha Bhist, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR,
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may No
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 8.5.2002
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 3,41,500/- along with interest @ 9% per
annum to the claimants.
2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:
3. On 19.10.1992 Shri Rishi Pal was going to his office on his
bicycle. At about 9.30 AM, the deceased reached near Gulab
Home, Maya Puri Road and suddenly a Crane bearing
registration No: DBL 3624 driven by its driver rashly and
negligently came from behind and struck against the deceased
without any signal or horn. Due to the impact, the deceased
alongwith his cycle fell down and received serious injuries on his
person. He succumbed to the said injuries on 25.10.1992.
4. A claim petition was filed on 12.1.1993 and an award was
passed on 8.5.2002. Aggrieved with the said award
enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.
5. Sh. Y R Sharma, counsel for the appellants contended that
the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.
1500/- per month whereas after looking at the facts and
circumstances of the case the tribunal should have assessed the
income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month. . It was urged
by the counsel that the tribunal erred in not considering future
prospects while computing compensation as it failed to
appreciate that the deceased would have earned much more in
near future as he was of 27 yrs of age only and would have lived
for another 30-40 yrs had he not met with the accident. It was
also alleged by the counsel that the tribunal did not consider the
fact that due to high rates of inflation the deceased would have
earned much more in near future and the tribunal also failed in
appreciating the fact that even the minimum wages are revised
twice in an year and hence, the deceased would have earned
much more in his life span. The counsel contended that the
tribunal erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of love
& affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium,
mental pain and sufferings and the loss of services, which were
being rendered by the deceased to the appellants. The counsel
has relied on following judgments in support of his contentions:
1. 1996 ACJ 581 SC.
2. 2005 ACJ 538 Delhi High Court.
Ms. Shobha Bhist, Advocate appeared on behalf respondents No.
2 submitted that the award passed by the ld. Tribunal is just and
fair and requires no interference by this court.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
7. PW-5 Smt. Murti Devi testified that deceased was her
husband who was working in a factory and earning Rs. 2,000/-
per month. He used to give his entire salary to her for running the
household expenses. She also deposed that the deceased was a
qualified mechanical engineer. PW 3 Shri D.V. Sardha, Senior
Personal Manager of Metal Forgings Pvt. Ltd. stated that the
deceased was working as an Inspector (Machine Shop) and was
drawing Rs. 1500/- p.m.
8. After considering all these factors, I am of the view that the
tribunal has not erred in assessing the income of the deceased at
Rs.1500/-.
9. Therefore, no interference is made in relation to income of
the deceased by this court.
10. As regards the future prospects I am of the view that there
was sufficient material on record to award future prospects and
therefore, the tribunal committed no error in granting future
prospects in the facts and circumstances of the case.
11. On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in
not granting adequate compensation towards loss of love &
affection, funeral expenses and loss of estate, whereas, no
compensation has been granted towards loss of consortium and
the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased
to the appellants. In this regard compensation towards loss of
love and affection is awarded at Rs. 10,000/-; compensation
towards funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- and
compensation towards loss of estate is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-.
Further, Rs. 50,000-/ is awarded towards loss of consortium.
12. As far as the contention pertaining to the awarding of
amount towards mental pain and sufferings caused to the
appellants due to the sudden demise of the deceased and the
loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to
the appellants is concerned, I do not feel inclined to award any
amount as compensation towards the same as the same are not
conventional heads of damages.
13. Taking into account the income of deceased at Rs. 1500/-
p.m. and considering the future prospects the income of the
deceased comes to Rs. (1500 + 3000 /2) i.e. Rs. 2250 p.m. 1/3 rd
is required to be deducted on the personal expenses. Thus the
loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2250-750 i.e. Rs. 1500/- p.m. or
Rs. 18,000/- per annum. The multiplier of 18 adopted by the
Tribunal also seem to be just and fair. Thus the loss of
dependency comes to 18,000 x 18 i.e. Rs. 3,24,000/-
14. After considering Rs. 90,000/-, which is granted towards
non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as
Rs. 4,14,000/-.
15. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is
enhanced to Rs. 4,14,000/- from Rs. 3,41,500/- with interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till
realisation and the same should be paid to the appellant by the
respondent No. 3 in the same proportion as awarded by the
Tribunal.
16. With the above direction, the present appeal is disposed of.
20.4.2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
