Gobind Ram Sachdeva vs Sita Ram Pant Ram
2010 Latest Caselaw 2516 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI



                                                           Date of Reserve: April 07, 2010
                                                              Date of Order: May 11, 2010
+ FAO No.158/1997
%                                                      11.05.2010
    Gobind Ram Sachdeva                              ...Appellant
    Through: Mr. Varun Kumar & Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocates

        Versus

        Sita Ram Pant Ram                                                 ...Respondent
        Through: Mr. M.K. Tiwari, proxy counsel


        JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.      Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?           Yes.

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                          Yes.

3.      Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?                                  Yes.



        JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

has been filed by the appellant seeking enhancement in compensation.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present appeal are

that the deceased a young unmarried son of the appellant aged around 27

years, possessed with a degree of B.E and working as Engineering Instructor

with All India Radio on a monthly salary of Rs.1287.10 died in an accident

on 12th February, 1977. The learned Tribunal considered the fact that he was

FAO 158/1997 Gobind Ram Sachdeva v. Sita Ram Pant Ram Page 1 Of 4 a brilliant student during his college time and was also selected for

deputation by Oman Government for a period of two years. Thus, instead of

taking his actual income of Rs. 1287/- per month for computing

compensation, took a monthly income of Rs.2700/- into account and

deducted only 1/3rd towards his personal living expenses. The dependency of

parents was calculated by using a multiplier of 16, at Rs.3,45,000/-.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the deceased was

selected for deputation for a period of two years by Oman Government on

proposed salary of 230 Oman Royals (each Royal equal to Rs.25.65) and

LRs should have therefore been awarded compensation taking into account

this salary. It was also argued that the Tribunal did not award non pecuniary

benefits. Reliance was placed by the counsel for the appellant on Oriental

Insurance Company Ltd. v. Deo Patodi & Ors. II (2009) ACC 875(SC).

4. In Deo Patodi (Supra) case, the deceased after his graduation had

come back to India. He was not working at the time of accident. However,

while studying in UK as a student, he was doing a part-time job and earning

1008.35 pounds equivalent to Rs.80,000/- per month. He was also having

offer with him from a US based company at an annual salary of Rs.18 lac. It

was argued before the Supreme Court that the compensation should have

been awarded by the court below taking into account the job offer available

to the deceased. The Supreme Court observed that no doubt the deceased

FAO 158/1997 Gobind Ram Sachdeva v. Sita Ram Pant Ram Page 2 Of 4 was having a job offer from US based company at an annual salary of Rs.18

lac, however, the accident took place when he was not working, having not

accepted the offer and he was still a student. It would have been hazardous

for the Tribunal to calculate the amount of compensation towards loss of

dependency on the basis of job offer with the deceased. In Deo Patodi's case

(supra), the income of the deceased, though he was unemployed, was

assessed on the basis of his capability to earn as Rs.25,000/- (by the Supreme

Court).

5. I consider that when a person is actually employed, the

Tribunals/Courts cannot enter into a guess work as to what would be the

income of the deceased as per his capabilities. If such a guess work is

allowed, that would be much more hazardous. The actual income of the

deceased would go into backdrop and every claimant would claim

compensation according to alleged potential/capabilities of the deceased and

it would be totally in the discretion of the Judge to assess the capabilities of

the deceased. I consider that such a proposition cannot be considered by the

Courts or Tribunals in those cases where a person is actually employed and

is earning a salary.

6. In the present case, the Tribunal did take into account the bright future

of the deceased and the fact that he was a B.E. and despite the fact that the

monthly income of the deceased was Rs.1280/-, for the purpose of

FAO 158/1997 Gobind Ram Sachdeva v. Sita Ram Pant Ram Page 3 Of 4 calculating compensation, it was taken as Rs.2700/- per month which is

more than double of his income. I also do not find any fault in deduction of

1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased since deceased was

unmarried. The deceased was aged 27 years. The parents of the deceased

were aged around 58 and 53 years. However, the Tribunal had taken a

multiplier of 16 whereas under similar circumstances in the judgment cited

by the appellant, the age of parents of the deceased was taken into

consideration for the purposes of multiplier & the Supreme Court applied

multiplier of 10 as the father of the deceased was a doctor working in

government hospital and was aged 51 years.

7. I find no force in this appeal. The appeal merits dismissal and is

hereby dismissed as such.

May 11, 2010                                        SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




FAO 158/1997   Gobind Ram Sachdeva v. Sita Ram Pant Ram             Page 4 Of 4