Citation : 2009 Latest Caselaw 3417 Del
Judgement Date : 27 August, 2009
19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP.No.163/2009
% Date of decision: 27th August, 2009
DALU RAM & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Suresh Kr. Sharma and
Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Advs.
versus
VINITA BERI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.L. Gupta and Mr. R.A. Gupta,
Advocates for the Insurance Co.
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 appellants have challenged the award of the learned
Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.5,53,232/- has been
awarded to the appellants. The appellants seek enhancement of
the award amount.
2. The accident dated 27th November, 2005 resulted in the
death of Narender Sharma. The deceased was survived by his
parents, two unmarried sisters and brother, who filed the claim
petition before the learned Tribunal.
3. The deceased was aged 24 years at the time of the accident
and was working as Supervisor with M/s. Sita Composers Pvt. Ltd.
earning Rs.7,500/- per month. The appellants proved the salary
certificate, Ex.PW-1/1 issued by the employer. The appellants
examined the employer, PW-2, who proved the salary certificate
and also the attendance register. However, learned Tribunal
disregarded the evidence on the ground that the appointment
letter and other records have not been produced before the
learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal took the minimum wages
into consideration and deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses
of the deceased and applied the multiplier of 11 to compute the
loss of dependency at Rs.5,18,232/-. Rs. 10,000/- has been
awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards loss
of love and affection. Total compensation awarded is
Rs.5,53,232/-.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged two
grounds at the time of the appeal. The first ground is that the
income of the deceased should be taken as Rs.7,500/- and future
prospects be taken into consideration. The second ground of
challenge is that the compensation be also awarded for loss of
estate.
5. With respect to the income of the deceased, there is
sufficient evidence on record that the deceased was working as a
Supervisor and was earning Rs.7,500/- per month. The same has
been proved by Ex.PW-1/1 and Ex.PW-2/A and the testimony of
PW-2. The income of the deceased is, therefore, taken to be
Rs.7,500/-. However, the future prospects are not taken into
consideration in view of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, 2009 (6)
Scale 129.
6. The learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal
expenses of the deceased. However, the appropriate deduction
according to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (Supra) is 1/2. The personal
expenses of the deceased are increased from 1/3rd to 1/2.
Deducting 1/2 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the
loss of dependency of the appellant is taken to be Rs.3,750/-.
7. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 11. The
age of mother of the appellant at the time of the accident was 49
years and, therefore, the appropriate multiplier according to the
age of the mother is 13. Taking the income of the deceased to
be Rs.7,500/-, deducting 1/2 towards personal expenses of the
deceased and applying the multiplier of 13, the total
compensation is computed to be Rs.5,85,000/-.
8. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards
loss of estate. Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate. The
total compensation is computed to be Rs.6,30,000/- (Rs.5,85,000
+ Rs.10,000 + Rs.25,000 + Rs.10,000).
9. The appeal is allowed and the award amount is enhanced
from Rs.5,53,232/- to Rs.6,30,000/- along with interest @ 7.5%
per annum. The enhanced award amount along with interest be
deposited by respondent No.3 with the learned Tribunal within a
period of 30 days.
10. Upon the said amount being deposited, the learned Tribunal
is directed to release the same to the appellant without any
restriction of fixed deposit.
11. Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for both the
parties under the signature of the Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J AUGUST 27, 2009 s.pal
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!