Delhi High Court
Smt. Sushila Rani & Ors. vs State Of Haryana on 1 June, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: May 4, 2010
Date of Order: 1st June, 2010
+FAO 207/1993
% 01.06.2010
SMT. SUSHILA RANI & ORS ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv.
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yashpal Rangi, Adv.
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. Present Appeal has been filed by the claimants being dissatisfied
with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide its award dated 12 th
July, 1993. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,85,400/-
along with interest @ 6% per annum to the appellants.
2. The deceased was aged around 46 years at the time of death due to
accident. He was stated to be having a shop in Jawahar Market and
earning around Rs. 150/- to Rs. 200/- per day as per the evidence
produced by the claimants. However, the claimants in the claim petition
had stated that the income of deceased was around Rs. 2500/- per month.
No proof of income was produced before the Trial Court nor were books
of accounts of the shop produced. No Income Tax was being paid by the
deceased. Considering all these factors, the learned Tribunal observed
that the income of the deceased could have been around Rs. 1200/- per
month. He considered dependency of the claimants as Rs. 800/- per
month. A multiplier of 19 was applied and thus a compensation of
Rs.1,82,400/- was calculated. Rs. 3,000/- was awarded as consortium to
the wife.
3. It is argued by counsel for the appellants that the deceased was
running a shop and therefore the income of the deceased taken by the
Tribunal as Rs. 1200/- per month was too low. I consider this plea must
fail. The Tribunal observed that in the year 1983 the exemption of
income tax was on an annual income of Rs. 15,000/-. Thus any person
earning Rs. 1500/- per month was liable to pay some income tax. The
deceased was not paying any income tax. His shop was only of cold
drinks and tea, therefore, the Tribunal rightly assessed the income of
deceased as Rs. 1200/- per month. Deduction of 1/3rd amount was made
from this income towards personal expenses of deceased as the
dependents were only claimants No. 1, 3, 4 and 5. Claimant No. 5 was
mother of deceased who was stated to be more than 100 years of age at
the time of filing of the claim petition. Thus practically future
dependency was only of wife and two children.
4. I consider, therefore, that 1/3rd deduction was rightly made. A
multiplier of 19 under any circumstances cannot be considered as low. I,
therefore, find that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the
claimants was just and fair. If the compensation is calculated as per
Sarla Varma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.; (2009) 6
SCC 121 case, even then the compensation amount would be almost the
same.
5. I find no reason to set aside the award of the Tribunal. I find no
force in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
June 01, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm
