Usha Jain & Ors. vs Kundal Lal & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3072 Del

     *          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                          Date of Reserve: May 18, 2010
                                                             Date of Order: July 02, 2010
+ FAO No.10/1997
%                                                                                02.07.2010
      Usha Jain & Ors.                                                  ...Petitioners
      Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate

         Versus

         Kundan Lal & Ors.                                              ...Respondents
         Through:    Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate for R-3
                     Mr. Anand Nandan, Advocate for DTC



         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

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?


         JUDGMENT

1. By present appeal, the appellants have assailed an award dated 27th August,

1996 passed by learned Tribunal, on the ground that the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal was inadequate.

2. Deceased Surinder Kumar Jain died in a road accident on 27th June, 1985 while

driving his motorcycle number DHT-3860, having been hit by bus number DEP-4832. It

was stated by claimants in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs.2,000/-

per month from his business. His age was around 30 years. He left behind his wife and

two children. His parents were aged around 57 and 53 years respectively. The learned

Tribunal observed that though the monthly income of the deceased was alleged to be

Rs.2,000/- per month (his annual income would come to Rs.24,000/-) but he was not an

income tax payee. The exemption limit for income tax in the year 1985-86 was

FAO 10/1997 Usha Jain & Ors. v. Kundan Lal & Ors. Page 1 Of 2 Rs.18,000/- per annum. However, the learned Tribunal still, for the purpose of

computation of compensation took monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3300/-. The

learned Tribunal relied upon General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

v. Sushma Thomas (AIR 1994 SC 1631) wherein the Supreme Court, in case of

deceased earning Rs.1032/- per month had assessed the compensation taking the

income at Rs.2,000/- per month considering future prospects of the deceased. In the

case in hand, the Tribunal seems to have considered the income of the deceased

around Rs.1650/- per month despite the fact that the deceased was not an income tax

payee (any income above Rs.18,000/- per annum was taxable). The learned Tribunal

deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses since the deceased had left behind three

dependents i.e. wife and two children. The parents of the deceased were not dependent

on him. The Tribunal therefore calculated the compensation on the basis of loss of

dependency at Rs.2200/- per month and applied multiplier of 16 and awarded

compensation of Rs.4,22,000/-.

3. I consider that under no circumstances, it can be said that the learned Tribunal

awarded low compensation or unjust or unfair compensation. I find no merits in the

present appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed.

July 02, 2010                                            SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




FAO 10/1997    Usha Jain & Ors. v. Kundan Lal & Ors.             Page 2 Of 2