Sushila vs Dharmender & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 4117 Del

42
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                       +       MAC.APP.No.355/2009

%                                 Date of decision: 12th October, 2009


      SUSHILA                     ..... Appellant
                           Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Adv.

                      versus

      DHARMENDER & ORS.                  ..... Respondents
                  Through:             Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv.
                                       for R-3.


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.4,43,406/- has been

awarded to the appellant. The appellant seeks the enhancement

of the award amount.

2. The accident dated 17th July, 2007 resulted in the death of

Ashok Kumar. The deceased was survived by his mother who

filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.

3. The deceased was aged 23 years at the time of the accident

and was unmarried. The appellant is the mother of the deceased

and she was aged about 43 years 6 months at the time of the

accident. However, in her affidavit before the learned Tribunal,

she mentioned her age to be 50 years. She placed on record

copy of her ration card - Ex.PW1/1 in which her age was shown to

be 40 years. Considering inconsistency between the affidavit and

her ration card, the learned Tribunal presumed her age to be

between 45-50 years and applied the multiplier of 13.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant is an illiterate lady and she could not place on record

the proof of her age. The learned counsel for the appellant has

placed on record the Identity Card issued by the Election

Commission in which her age is shown to be 42 years as on 1 st

January, 2006. The photocopy of the Identity Card issued by

Election Commission of India has been filed along with the

appeal.

5. Vide order dated 2nd September, 2009, the appellant was

directed to remain present in the Court along with original

Election Card, in pursuance to which the appellant is present in

the Court today and she has produced the original Election Card,

which has been perused by this Court as well as learned counsel

for respondent No.3.

6. The age of the appellant is taken to be 43 years 6 months

at the time of the accident and the appropriate multiplier for the

said age is 14 according to the recent judgment of Supreme

Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation, 2009 (6) Scale 129. The multiplier is accordingly

enhanced from 13 to 14. Applying the multiplier of 14, the loss of

dependency is computed to be Rs.4,93,668/- (2938.50 x 12 x 14).

The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards funeral

expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards love and affection which are

not disturbed. No compensation has been awarded towards loss

of estate. Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate. The

total compensation is computed to be Rs.5,38,668/- (Rs.4,93,668

+ 10,000 + 25,000 + 10,000).

7. The appeal is allowed and the award amount is enhanced

from Rs.4,43,406/- to Rs.5,38,668/- along with interest at the rate

of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till

realization.

8. The amount be deposited by respondent No.3 with the

learned Tribunal within 30 days. On such deposit being made,

the learned Tribunal is directed to release 50% of the amount to

the appellant. The remaining amount be kept in the fixed deposit

for a period of 5 years with cumulative interest.

9. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel for the

parties under signatures of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J

OCTOBER 12, 2009 Ag