Delhi High Court
Prabhawati & Ors. vs Kulwinder Singh on 18 May, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: April 29, 2010
Date of Order: May 18, 2010
+ FAO 112/1990
% 18.05.2010
Prabhawati & Ors. ...Appellants
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate
Versus
Kulwinder Singh ...Respondent
Through: Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Advocate
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. By way of present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the
appellants approached this Court for enhancement of compensation awarded by learned
Tribunal. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that Tribunal did not take into account
the correct parameters for grant of compensation. The Tribunal assessed the
dependency at Rs.500/- whereas the deceased was working as a regular employee and
the salary of deceased was proved as Rs.880/- per month. At the time of death of
deceased, there were four dependents i.e. wife, one son and two daughters. Thus, the
deductions towards personal expenses should have been made only of 1/4th of income.
It is also submitted that the Tribunal did not take into account future prospects and
considered that since the wife of the deceased was taken on employment by the same
department on a salary of Rs.700/- per month, dependency got reduced.
2. It is now settled law that the endeavour of the Court should be to grant just and
fair compensation to the dependents of the deceased. The compensation should not be
FAO 112/1990 Prabhawati & Ors v. Kulwinder Singh Page 1 Of 4
in the nature of windfall but at the same time it should also not be unjust that it does not
take into account the dependency of the dependents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Smt. Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 ACJ 1298 has standardized
different parameters for calculating compensation so that there was uniformity in grant of
compensation by the Tribunals.
3. It is settled law that taking employment by wife of the deceased after death of the
husband, is no ground to refuse compensation. In the present case, wife has deposed
that she was even otherwise working and helping the family. I also consider that the
Tribunal in this case should have taken into account the future prospects of the
deceased while considering the compensation.
4. I find that the Tribunal wrongly took into account the monthly loss of income to the
family @ Rs.500/-. The deceased was having one son and two daughters who were of
young age and school-going and it is a well known fact that where the children are
school going, the efforts of the parents is to provide maximum comforts and best
education to the children and for this purpose they became miser as far as spending on
themselves is concerned, more so when the parents belong to lower strata of income
group. Even as per Smt. Sarla Varma (supra) where the number of dependents were
four, the deductions towards personal expenses should be 1/4th. I, therefore, consider
that in this case out of the salary of deceased only 1/4th should have been taken towards
personal expenses and Rs.660/- should have been considered as the contribution
towards family. Since the deceased was a regular employee and his salary was bound to
increase every year by annual increment and was also bound to increase with future
promotions etc. I consider that keeping in view Sarla Varma's case (supra) 50% of salary
was liable to be added in the income as future benefits. Age of the deceased was 37
years. The Multiplier applied as per 2nd Schedule should have been 16. Since the
dependents were wife and children of deceased, the multiplier in this case would be 16
FAO 112/1990 Prabhawati & Ors v. Kulwinder Singh Page 2 Of 4
and not 20 as applied by the Tribunal. Thus, the compensation payable to the appellant
would be (660+330) x 12x16 = 1,90,080/-
5. The Tribunal had also not granted any amount towards consortium, loss of
estate, funeral expenses. I consider that the appellants were entitled to Rs.3,000/-
towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- each for loss of consortium and estate. Thus, the
total amount towards compensation comes to Rs.2,03,080/-.
6. The learned Tribunal had awarded 10% interest from the date of filing of the claim
petition till realization. I find no fault with this part of the Award.
7. A plea has been raised by the respondent/ insurance company that the liability of
the respondent was limited to Rs.1,50,000/- as the insurance policy was a limited liability
policy and the premium charged in this case was only Rs.240/- which was a premium for
a statutory amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, as per the tariff rates. It is submitted by counsel for
insurance company that the additional liability would be that of the owner of the vehicle. I
consider that this plea of respondent / insurance company must fail. In view of the
judgment of this Court in Neeta Trehan & Ors v Gopal Krishan & Ors, FAO No. 257 of
1991 decided on 17th May, 2010 the liability of insurance company shall be to pay entire
compensation as awarded by this Court. The premium of Rs.240/- per month as per tariff
rules was not a premium for limited liability. The premium for limited liability was Rs.200/.
I, therefore, hold that entire enhanced compensation shall be payable by the insurance
company. The insurance company shall pay this enhanced amount of compensation
within four weeks from today before the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall be
released in favour of the appellant forthwith by the Tribunal. In case the compensation is
not paid within four weeks by the insurance company, the interest from the date of this
judgment shall be chargeable @ 12% per annum instead of 10% per annum.
FAO 112/1990 Prabhawati & Ors v. Kulwinder Singh Page 3 Of 4
8. In terms of above order, this appeal stands disposed of.
May 18, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd
FAO 112/1990 Prabhawati & Ors v. Kulwinder Singh Page 4 Of 4
