Ms. Kusum Ranjan And Others vs Shri Rajesh Kumar And Others
2010 Latest Caselaw 5531 Del

                                    REPORTED
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     FAO NO.550/2002


MS. KUSUM RANJAN AND ORS.                ..... Appellants
             Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate.


             versus


SH. RAJESH KUMAR AND ORS.                  ..... Respondents
              Through: Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate,
                       for the respondent no.5.



%                         Date of Reserve : November 9, 2010
                          Date of Decision : December 6, 2010


CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
   to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?




FAO No.550/2002                                       Page 1 of 7
                       JUDGMENT

: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

The appellants in this appeal seek enhancement of the

compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal by Award dated 25th July, 2002.

2. The facts are not in dispute. The appellants, who are the legal

heirs of Sh. Ashok Kumar Ranjan, had filed a petition for

compensation on account of his death in a road accident on 27th July,

1994 at 7.25 p.m. on Old Rohtak Road. The deceased was driving his

two-wheeler scooter on the left side of the road at Azad Market when

he was hit by the offending bus bearing registration No. DL-1P-2037

from behind. The deceased, after he fell down, was run over by the

front wheel of the bus and died at the spot.

3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by its judgment dated

25th July, 2002 passed an award in the sum of ` 7,73,200/- (Rupees

Seven Lakh Seventy Three Thousand and Two Hundred Only)

including the interim award with interest @ 9% per annum from the

date of the institution of the petition till the date of the award.

Dissatisfied with the award amount, the claimants, who are the

appellants in this appeal, pray for modification of the award amount.

4. At the time of hearing, Mr. Navneet Goyal, the learned counsel

for the appellants assailed the award on three grounds, which are as

follows:-

(i) The Tribunal wrongly assessed the total salary of the deceased

at ` 4645/-, though as per the salary certificate of the deceased (Ex.

PW2/1), the salary of the deceased was ` 5005/-. The monthly

earning of the deceased ought to have been calculated by adding to

the income of the deceased (at the time of his death), a sum of

Rs.17,669/- (income at the age of superannuation) and dividing the

total sum by the figure of 2.

(ii) The Tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 12 instead

of applying the multiplier of 15 which was the correct multiplier;

and

(iii) The Tribunal, while granting the non-pecuniary damages to the

appellants, neglected to award any amount towards loss of estate and

funeral expenses; instead, awarded a sum of ` 10,000/- in all for loss

of consortium, parental support and loss of estate.

5. Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, the learned counsel for the

respondent no.5- M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., on the other

hand supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal. According

to him the impugned award was passed on the documentary and oral

evidence on record and no modification thereto was warranted on

facts or in law.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties who have

taken me through the record, I am unable to agree with the

submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent no.5. It is

not in dispute that the deceased was in a regular and stable job and

was working in Mata Jai Kaur Public School, Ashok Vihar, Delhi.

PW-2, the Accountant from the said school has proved the salary

statement of the deceased at the time of his death, which is Ex.PW2/1.

As per this certificate, the deceased was earning a sum of ` 5005/- at

the time of his death. Ex.PW2/6 is a statement under the signatures

of the Principal of Mata Jai Kaur Public School showing how the

salary of the deceased would have risen from year to year, i.e. from

1995 to 2013. As per the said exhibit, (Ex.PW2/6) in the year of the

passing of the award, i.e. in the year 2002, the total salary of the

deceased would have been ` 13,200/- per month and ` 17,669/- per

month at the time of superannuation. The deceased, at the time of his

death was 39 years of age and he had left behind five dependants

including his mother, who died during the pendency of the claim

petition.

7. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case

of Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. DTC and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, an

addition of 50% must be made to the actual salary income of the

deceased towards future prospects. The relevant part of the judgment

states: -

"In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years."

8. The record reveals that the deceased had a permanent job as a

teacher in Mata Jai Kaur Public School and was below 40 years of

age. Thus, though the evidence indicates a different and larger

percentage of increase, this Court as mandated by the Supreme Court,

is adopting the standardized addition. In this manner, the salary of

the deceased works out to ` 5005/- (actual salary) + ` 2502.50 (50%

increase) = ` 7507.50, which may be rounded off to ` 7507/-.

Deducting 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses of the

deceased, in view of the fact that the number of the dependant family

members of the deceased fell in the bracket of 4 to 6, the loss of

dependency of the family comes to ` 7507 - ` 1877 (rounded off)

= ` 5630/- (per month). The annual income, thus, comes to ` 5630 x

12 = ` 67560/-. Applying the multiplier of 15 in accordance with the

column no.4 of the chart set out in the paragraph 19 of the judgment

in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the total loss of dependency

works out to ` 67560 x 15 = ` 10,13,400/-.

9. In addition, the appellants will be entitled to a sum of ` 5000/-

under the head loss of estate and ` 5000/- towards funeral expenses,

apart from the sum of ` 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards

loss of consortium. Thus, the total compensation will be

` 10,33,400/-. After deducting the amount awarded by the Tribunal,

i.e. ` 7,73,200/-, the enhancement would be ` 2,60,200/- in addition

to the amount awarded by the Tribunal (i.e. 7,73,200/- with interest @

9% per annum). Interest @ 7.5 % per annum shall be payable by the

respondents no.5 on the enhanced amount from the date of the filing

of the appeal till the date of realization. The enhanced amount along

with the interest shall enure to the benefit of the widow of the

deceased, the appellant no.1 herein.

10. The respondent no.5 is directed to make the payment of the

award amount within one month, failing which the award shall carry a

further interest @ 10% per annum from the date of the award till the

date of realization of the compensation.

11. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms.

                                              REVA KHETRAPAL
                                                 (JUDGE)
December     6, 2010
sk