S.Jasbir Singh & Anr. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3079 Del

     *          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                                Date of Reserve: May 26, 2010
                                                                   Date of Order: July 02, 2010
+ MAC Appeal 92/2010
%                                                                                      02.07.2010
     S. Jasbir Singh & Anr.                                                     ...Appellant
     Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate

         Versus

         National Insurance Co. Ltd.                                            ...Respondent
         Through: Mr. S.L. Gupta, Advoc ate


         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. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants against an award dated 12th

November 2009 on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was

inadequate.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that on 22nd June,

2004 Smt. Harvinder Kaur was sitting on pillion seat of motorcycle number DL-6-SQ-

1979 being driven by her son Amandeep Singh. When the motorcycle reached Punjabi

Bagh underpass, its tyre got punctured due to which deceased fell down from the

motorcycle on the road and sustained head injuries. She was taken to Maharaja Agrasen

Hospital where she succumbed to the injuries. The claim petition was filed by other two

sons of the deceased making Amandeep Singh as respondent no.1 and the insurance

company as respondent no.2.

MAC Appeal 92/2010 S. Jasbir Singh & Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 1 Of 3

3. Before learned Tribunal it was submitted that the deceased was taking tuitions of

students of class 4th and 5th and was doing embroidery work and earning Rs.5,000/- per

month. However, even the educational qualification of the deceased was not proved

before the Tribunal. No document was placed before the Tribunal regarding her

earnings. The deceased was aged around 42 years. The learned Tribunal calculated

compensation to be awarded to the Lrs of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages

prevalent at the relevant time. The Tribunal added 50% of the minimum wages as future

prospects and applied a multiplier of 14 and calculated the damages after deducting 50%

of the amount towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. It had come on

record that only one son of the deceased was minor and other son who had filed the

claim petition was major. The Tribunal calculated total loss of dependency to

Rs.3,60,725/- added to it Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral

expenses, Rs.20,000/- as loss of love and affection and Rs.1,75,713/- towards

compensation for medical treatment and awarded a sum of Rs.5,71,438/-.

4. It is argued by the counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal wrongly deducted

50% of the amount towards personal expenses and wrongly calculated compensation by

taking minimum wages as the income.

5. I consider that the Tribunal had awarded just, adequate and fair compensation in

this case. As per Sarla Varma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.; (2009) 6

SCC 121 where the deceased was self-employed, the courts should take into account

only the actual income at the time of death. In the present case, it was stated that the

deceased was self-employed but no proof of her working, educational qualification or

income was given. Despite that, the Tribunal had taken the income as being earned by a

normal person on the basis of minimum wages. The future prospects were not to be

added in terms of Sarla Varma's case (supra), however, the same were added by the

MAC Appeal 92/2010 S. Jasbir Singh & Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 2 Of 3 Tribunal. The multiplier was applied as per parameters set by various decisions of Apex

Court including Sarla Varma's case. The personal expenses were rightly deducted to

50%. One son of the deceased was the tort feaser as he was driving the deceased on

motorcycle and caused accident. He was having capacity to earn and maintain a

motorcycle. The other son of the deceased was also a major and it has not been brought

on record that he was dependent upon the deceased. Thus, only one son of the

deceased was minor and dependent. In view of the fact that there was only one

dependent, the income of the deceased was to be divided into two parts, one for herself

and one for the dependent and the deduction of 50% towards personal expenses was

therefore justified.

6. I find no force in the present appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed.

July 02, 2010                                                            SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




MAC Appeal 92/2010     S. Jasbir Singh & Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.        Page 3 Of 3