Delhi High Court
Smt. Suman Akbar & Ors. vs Commissioner Of Police & Ors. on 30 November, 2009
Author: V.B.Gupta
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
MAC. App. No.647/2006
% Judgment reserved on: 24th November, 2009
Judgment delivered on: 30th November, 2009
1. Smt. Suman Akbar,
Wd/O. Late Mohd. Akbar @ Francis Peter.
R/o. House of Shri S.K. Chauhan,
Gali No.18B, Saadh Nagar Part II, Palam Colony,
Delhi Cantt, New Delhi-110 047.
2. Mrs. Anita W/o. Shri Vinay Joseph,
D/o. Late Mohd. Akbar @ Francis Peter,
R/o. 15/303, Kariappa Marg,
Delhi Cantt-10.
3. Ms. Alka wife of Shri Arack
D/o. Late Mohd. Akbar @ Francis Peter,
R/o. C/o. Smt. Suman Akbar,
Gali No.18B, Saadh Nagar Part II, Palam Colony,
Delhi Cantt, New Delhi-110 047.
4. Mrs. Alveen S/o. Late Mohd. Akbar @ Francis Peter,
R/o. House of Shri S.K. Chauhan,
Gali No.18B, Saadh Nagar Part II, Palam Colony,
Delhi Cantt, New Delhi-110 047. ....Appellants
Through: Mr. Sanjay Mishra with Ms.
Hemangi Saikia, Advs.
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police, Police Head Quarters,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
2. Constable Nirander Singh No.596/SW,
Staff South West, Sadar Bazar,
Police Station, Delhi Cantt.
3. The Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
5, Shamnath Marg, Delhi-54.
MAC 647/2006 Page 1 of 6
(earlier the petition was filed against the
Delhi Administration) ...Respondents.
Through: Ms. Sonia Sharma with Mr. Aslam
Mirza, Advs.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
V.B.Gupta, J.
By way of this appeal appellants are seeking enhancement of
compensation amount to Rs.4 lacs.
2. Brief facts of this case are that on 12th February, 1989 deceased Mhd.
Akbar @ Francis Peter died in a road accident. The offending vehicle which is
Gypsy police Van, was being driven by respondent No.2.
3. Vide judgment dated 26th April, 2006, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(for short as „Tribunal‟), awarded compensation amounting to Rs.1,42,500/- along
with 12% interest from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, claimants have filed the present
appeal seeking enhanced compensation.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for appellants that though Tribunal
considered the age of deceased at the time of accident to be 45 years but erred in
adopting the multiplier of 13 years applicable to the person aged 45 years but not
exceeding 50 years. Tribunal ought to have taken the multiplier of 15 as per
second Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short as „Act‟) which is
applicable when the person dies at the age of 40 years but not exceeding 45 years.
6. Second contention is that deceased was earning Rs.1800/- per month as per
the salary certificate while Tribunal has taken monthly income as Rs.825 per
month only.
7. Thirdly, Tribunal deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the
deceased, ignoring the fact that deceased was having four legal heirs. Under these
circumstances, 1/4th amount should have been deducted towards personal
expenses.
8. On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for respondents that
no proof of age was submitted by the appellant with regard to the age of deceased.
As per appellants own case, age of deceased was 45 years. So, under these
circumstances, Tribunal correctly applied the multiplier of 13 years, as per second
Schedule of the Act.
9. Coming to the income of the deceased, it is contended that monthly
income of deceased has been assessed as Rs.825/- per month as per salary
certificate. Tribunal has also taken into account the future advancement prospects
and as such the Tribunal correctly calculated the compensation.
10. Lastly, it is contended that deduction of 1/3rd is as per standard laid down
by the Supreme Court and compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair.
11. As per salary certificate Ex. PX, deceased was employed as a driver and
was being paid salary of Rs.825/- per month. During the month of January 1989,
he was also paid Rs. 944/- as overtime allowance. As deceased was getting
overtime allowance, Tribunal ought to have taken this factor into consideration.
Since overtime allowance varies from month to month, it would be reasonable to
presume that on average, deceased must have been getting about Rs.500/- to
Rs.600/- per month as overtime allowance. Under these circumstances, monthly
income of deceased is taken as Rs.825 + Rs.575 = Rs.1400/-.
12. Now, the question is to be considered is as to what multiplier should be
adopted in this case. It is well-settled that future prospects of advancement in life
and career should also be considered while adopting the proper multiplier.
13. In Smt. Sarla Dixit and Anr. v. Balwant Yadv & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1272,
the Apex Court has observed;
"So far as the adoption of the proper multiplier is concerned, it
was observed that the future prospects of advancement in life
and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment
the multiplicand. While the chance of the multiplier is
determined by two factors, namely, the rate of interest
appropriate to a stable economy and the age of the deceased or
of the claimant whichever is higher, the ascertainment of the
multiplicand is a more difficult exercise.
The average gross future monthly income could be arrived at by
adding the actual gross income at the time of death to the
maximum which he would have otherwise got had he not died
a premature death and dividing that figure by two. Thus the
average gross monthly income spread over his entire future
career, had it been available, would have been the gross monthly
average income available to the family of the deceased had he
survived as a bread winner."
14. No proof with regard to date of birth has been filed but as deceased was
aged 45 years old, Tribunal rightly adopted the multiplier as per second Schedule
of the Act for the age 45 to 50 years, which comes to 13 years.
15. In plethora of cases, Apex Court and various High Courts have held that
1/3rd amount of the income should be deducted towards self-expenses of the
deceased. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Charlie and another, AIR 2005
Supreme Court 2157, the Court observed;
"What would be the percentage of deduction for personal
expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula
by universal application. It would depend upon circumstances
of each case. In the instant case the claimant was nearly 37
years of age and was married. Therefore, as rightly contended
by learned counsel for the appellant, 1/3rd deduction has to be
made for personal expenditure."
16. Thus, I do not find any force in the contention of learned counsel for the
appellants that Tribunal wrongly deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased
towards personal expenses.
17. The average monthly earning of the deceased, after taking into
consideration the future advancement prospects and applying the principles laid
down in Sarla Dixit (Supra) would be Rs.1400 + Rs.2800 = Rs.4200/2 =
Rs.2100/-. Out of this, amount of 1/3rd is to be deducted on account of his
personal expenses, the loss of his family dependency comes to Rs.1400/-. The
yearly loss of dependency will be Rs.1400 x 12 = Rs.16,800/-. As multiplier for
the age group between 45 to 50 years as per second Schedule of the Act is 13,
total loss of dependency of the claimants will be Rs.16,800 x 13 = Rs. 2,18, 400/-.
18. In addition, claimants have also been awarded Rs.20,000/- on account of
loss of love and affection, Rs.20,000/- on account of loss of consortium and
Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, claimants in all are entitled to
compensation amounting to Rs.2,18,400 + Rs.45,000 = Rs.2,63,400/-.
19. As per impugned award, claimants have been awarded total compensation
amounting to Rs.1,42,500/- (less interim award) along with 12% interest from the
date of accident.
20. Now, the appellants shall be entitled to 6% interest at the enhanced amount
of compensation only (keeping in view the Bank Rate prevailing at present) from
the date of filing of the petition till realization.
21. Present appeal thus stands allowed accordingly.
22. Parties shall bear their own costs.
23. Trial court record be sent back.
30th November, 2009 V.B.GUPTA, J.
rb
