Savita vs Gurnam Kaur
2009 Latest Caselaw 1769 Del

8
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                   +     FAO No.180/1995

                                Date of Decision: 30th April, 2009
%
      SAVITA                                   ..... Appellant
                  Through : Mr. O.P. Mannie, Adv.

                       versus

      GURNAM KAUR                       ..... Respondent
              Through : Mr. Pradeep Gaur and
                        Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, Advs.

CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may               Yes
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?              Yes

3.      Whether the judgment should be                      Yes
        reported in the Digest?

                       JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned

Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- has been

awarded to the claimant. The claimant seeks enhancement

of the award amount.

2. The accident dated 3rd May, 1994 resulted in the death

of Anil Kumar Narula aged 38 years. The deceased left

behind his widow, two minor children and father who filed

the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. The learned

Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.78,000/- per

annum. Rs.500/- per month was deducted towards the

personal expenses of the deceased and the multiplier of 10

was applied to compute the loss of dependency at

Rs.7,20,000/-. No amount has been awarded towards loss of

consortium, loss of estate and loss of love and affection.

3. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on

two short grounds, i.e., the multiplier of 16 should be applied

as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and

non-pecuniary damages be awarded.

4. With respect to the multiplier, the deceased was aged

38 years and the appropriate multiplier as per the Second

Schedule is 16. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

recent case of Sarla Verma vs. DTC has corrected the

multiplier provided in Second Schedule and the appropriate

multiplier at the age of 38 is 15. The multiplier in the

present case is, therefore taken to be 15 instead of 10. Loss

of dependency accordingly is computed at Rs.10,80,000/-

[(78,000 - 500 x 12) x 15].

5. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any

compensation for loss of consortium, loss of love, affection

and loss of estate. The compensation of Rs.10,000/- is

awarded for loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- to each of the

applicants for loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- for

loss of estate. The total compensation of Rs.11,40,000/-

(Rs.10,80,000 + Rs.10,000 + Rs.40,000 + Rs.10,000) is

awarded to the appellant.

6. The appeal is allowed and the compensation is

enhanced from Rs.7,20,000/- to Rs.11,40,000/-. The learned

Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum

which is not disturbed on the original award amount of

Rs.7,20,000/-. However, on the enhanced amount, the rate

of interest shall be 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition

till payment in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal vs. U.P. State

Road Transport Corporation, III 2008 ACC (1) SC.

7. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced

award amount along with interest thereon with the learned

Tribunal within 30 days. The shares of the appellants shall be

as under: -

              Appellant No.1       :    70%
              Appellant Nos.2 to 4 :    10% each

8. Upon such deposit being made, the learned Tribunal is

directed to release 10% of the total amount to each of the

appellants. With respect to the appellant No.1, 60% of the

award amount along with interest thereon be kept in fixed

deposit with nationalized bank for the period of 10 years on

which periodical interest be paid to her but no loan, advance

or withdrawal be permitted without prior permission of the

learned Tribunal.

J.R. MIDHA, J

APRIL 30, 2009 mk