Delhi High Court
Rakesh Kumar & Ors. vs Govind Ram & Ors. on 4 May, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 26th April, 2010
Date of Order: 4th May, 2010
+ FAO 211 of 1994
%
04.05.2010
RAKESH KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.P. Sharma, Advocate.
Versus
GOVIND RAM & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None.
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
By this appeal, the appellants have sought enhancement in
compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide award dated 20th May, 1994.
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that Smt.
Asha Rani died of an accident on 14th September, 1988. The Tribunal upheld
the right of the appellant to receive compensation from the insurer i.e.
insurance company. While computing the quantum of compensation in case
of death of Asha Rani in Suit No. 466/1988, the Tribunal took into account
the income of the deceased as Rs. 1500/- per month. Out of this, the Tribunal
deducted Rs. 300/- per month (of Rs. 1500/-) towards personal expenses and
observed that she must be spending Rs. 1200/- per month on the maintenance
FAO 211 of 1994 page 1 Of 4
of the claimants. The Tribunal calculated annual dependency as
Rs.14,400/-. Since Asha Rani was aged about 42 years at the time of her
death, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 10 observing that she would have
continued to work at least for 10 next years and the claimants could have
continued to depend upon her for at least 10 years. The total dependency was
taken as Rs. 1,44,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 16,000/- towards love and
affection and thus awarded Rs. 1,60,000/- as compensation.
3. The appellants have contended that the Tribunal had taken a multiplier
of 10 which was contrary to law since the age of deceased was 42 years and if
she survived, she would have worked up to the age of 62 years. The Tribunal
also gave only meager amount of Rs. 16,000/- towards love and affection. It
is also submitted that the Tribunal did not take into account the future
prospects and awarded simple interest @ 12 per cent per annum whereas the
interest could have been awarded @ 18% per annum.
4. It is not disputed that the deceased was a contract labour. She used to
get stitching work from a factory on piece rate basis and used to earn between
Rs. 50/- and Rs. 60/- per day. That is how her income was computed as Rs.
1500/- per month. Looking at the number of dependents, the Tribunal
deducted 1/5th of the amount per month and took into account Rs. 1200/- per
month, which the deceased would have been spending on the dependents.
5. I consider that in this case future prospects in the nature of progress in
the career of deceased could not have been considered since the deceased was
FAO 211 of 1994 page 2 Of 4
not having any permanent job. She was working as a skilled labour and was
getting pay on the basis of skilled labour. Her actual income has been taken
into account. However, the Tribunal should have taken into account the
inflation and rise in the wages due to inflation. Since the deceased was
working, though on piece rate basis, but the amount being paid to her was
governed by market forces and she would have earned more than minimum
wages. Due to rise in inflation and fall in the value of rupee, the amount
earned would have gone up in the terms of rupee and 50% of what was being
earned by her should have been added. This court in Kanwar Devi Vs. Bansal
Roadways, 2008 ACJ 2182 and in Lekh Raj Vs. Suram Singh, 2007 ACJ 2165
had held that if the person was earning minimum wages at the time of
accident, 50% of the amount should be added to the income to counter
inflation and rise in minimum wages from time to time.
6. I consider that in the present case, the Tribunal should have taken into
account the impact of inflation on the wages being earned by her and should
have added 50% of it.
7. The Tribunal also applied multiplier of 10 wrongly. The second
schedule of Motor Vehicle Act provides for a multiplier of 15 in case of a
person whose age, at the time of death was between 41 to 45 years. In Sarla
Verma's case (2009 ACJ 1298), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved a
multiplier of 14 years. I consider that a multiplier of 14 should have been
applied by the trial court. I find no reason to interfere with the amount
FAO 211 of 1994 page 3 Of 4
awarded by the Tribunal towards love and affection or the interest awarded by
the Tribunal. I, therefore, modify the award passed by the Tribunal and
following compensation would be payable to the claimants:
(Rs. 1200/- + Rs. 600/-) x 12 x 14 + (Rs. 16,000/-)
= Rs. 1,800/- x 12 x 14 + Rs. 16,000/-
= Rs. 3,18,400/-
8. The award is modified accordingly and the appellants would be entitled
to total compensation of Rs. 3,18,400/-. The insurance company shall deposit
the balance amount + interest on difference from the date of award till
payment. The claimant would be entitled to get this enhanced amount
forthwith. The MACT shall enforce this modified award after verifying the
identity of claimants.
May 04, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm
FAO 211 of 1994 page 4 Of 4
