Delhi High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sumita & Ors. on 3 March, 2010
Author: J.R. Midha
30
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP.No.25/2007
Date of Decision: 3rd March, 2010
%
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Adv.
versus
SUMITA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Navneet Goyal and
Mr. Varun Kumar, Advs. for
R-1 to 4.
Mr. Divjeet Singh Vohra,
Adv. for R-5 and 6.
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.12,55,000/- has been
awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 to 4. The appellant
is seeking reduction of the award amount.
Claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 have filed cross-objections
seeking enhancement of the award amount.
2. The accident dated 2nd October, 2005 resulted in the
death of Pawan Kumar Yadav. The deceased was aged 23
years at the time of the accident and was carrying on the
business of transporter in the name of Yadav Tempo Service.
The deceased left behind four legal representatives, namely,
widow, minor son and parents who filed the claim petition
before the learned Tribunal.
3. The father of the deceased appeared in the witness box
as PW-1 and deposed that the deceased was a transporter by
profession and was running transport business in the name
of Yadav Tempo Service earning Rs.12,000/- to Rs.14,000/-
per month. The copy of the passbook of the deceased with
State Bank of India was proved as Ex.PW1/1 according to
which, the total deposits between 28th August, 2004 to 20th
May, 2005 were Rs.76,000/-. There were eight withdrawals
of Rs.7,635/- at regular intervals. According to PW-1,
Rs.7,635/- was being paid as EMI to the bank by the
deceased towards the vehicle owned by him. On the basis of
the said withdrawals, the income of the deceased was taken
as Rs.6,000/- per month considering that the taxable limit in
2005-06 was Rs.1,00,000/-. The learned Tribunal added 50%
towards the future prospects, deducted 1/3rd towards
personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 17 to
compute the loss of dependency at Rs.12,25,000/-.
Rs.10,000/- has been awarded towards loss of consortium,
Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and
Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total
compensation awarded is Rs.12,55,000/-.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged the
following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-
(i) The income of the deceased be taken according to
the minimum wages.
(ii) The future prospects should not be taken into
consideration for computation of compensation.
5. The learned counsel for claimants/respondents No.1
to 4 have urged the following grounds at the time of hearing
of this appeal:-
(i) The income of the deceased be taken to be
Rs.1,00,000/- per annum.
(ii) The personal expenses of the deceased be
reduced from 1/3rd to 1/4th.
(iii) The multiplier be enhanced from 17 to 18.
(iv) The compensation be awarded for loss of estate.
6. With respect to the income of the deceased, the
claimants have proved that the deceased was paying EMI of
Rs.7,635/- to the bank towards the loan taken for the vehicle
and, therefore, the income of the deceased has to be more
than that. The claimants have claimed that the deceased
was earning Rs.12,000/- to Rs.14,000/- per month. However,
since the deceased was not paying any Income Tax, the
income of the deceased ought to have been taken at
Rs.1,00,000/- per annum which was the upper taxable limit
at that time. The income of the deceased is, therefore, taken
to be Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal has
added 50% towards future prospects. The present case does
not warrant the future prospects to be taken into
consideration in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) Scale 129. The learned
Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses.
However, the appropriate deduction in the present case is
1/4th as the deceased has left behind four legal
representatives. The personal expenses of the deceased are,
therefore, reduced from 1/3rd to 1/4th. The learned Tribunal
has applied the multiplier of 17 whereas the appropriate
multiplier at the age of 23 years is 18. The multiplier is,
therefore, enhanced from 17 to 18. The learned Tribunal has
not awarded any compensation towards the loss of estate.
Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate.
7. Taking the income of the deceased as Rs.1,00,000/- per
annum, deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses and
applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of dependency is
computed to be Rs.13,50,000/- (Rs.1,00,000 x 3/4 x 18).
Adding Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/-
towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards loss
of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, the total
compensation is computed to be Rs.13,90,000/-
(Rs.13,50,000 + Rs.10,000 + Rs.10,000 + Rs.10,000 +
Rs.10,000).
8. The appeal is dismissed. The cross-objections are
allowed and the award amount is enhanced from
Rs.12,55,000/- to Rs.13,90,000/- along with interest @8%
per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date
of notice of deposit under Order 21 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
9. The enhanced award amount along with interest be
deposited by the appellant with UCO Bank A/c Sumita, Delhi
High Court Branch through Mr. M.M. Tandon, Member-Retail
Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi (Mobile
No. 09310356400) within 30 days.
10. Upon the aforesaid deposit being made, UCO Bank is
directed to keep a sum of Rs.50,000/- in fixed deposit in the
name of Chirag till he attains majority on which monthly
interest be paid to respondent No.1.
11. The remaining enhanced amount be released to
respondents No.1, 3 and 4 in equal shares by transferring the
same to their respective Savings Bank Account.
12. The name of respondent No.1 in para '2' of the order
dated 30th November, 2009 is corrected and be read as
'Sumita' instead of 'Sunita'.
13. Since the appeal has been disposed of, FDRs in terms
of the order dated 30th November, 2009 shall be handed over
to the claimants/respondents on the maturity.
14. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel
for both the parties under signature of Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J
MARCH 03, 2010/aj
