Surajmukhi & Ors. vs Ashok Kumar & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2645 Del

                * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                        Date of Reserve: 07.04.2010
                                                        Date of Order: 18th May, 2010

FAO No. 115/1997 & CM Applications No. 3433-3434/2010
%                                                                         18.5.2010

       Surajmukhi & Ors.                                           ... Appellants
                               Through: Mr. M.B.Singh, Advocate

               Versus


       Ashok Kumar & Anr.                               ... Respondents
                        Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate for R-2


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 the present appeal, appellants have sought enhancement in

compensation as awarded to the appellants under Section 110- A of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1939 by the Tribunal.

2. The deceased who died out of accident on the night of 20/21

October, 1984 was aged 41 years and working as Assistant Sub-Inspector in

Delhi Police at a monthly salary of Rs.1239.30/-. He left behind wife, three

children and his parents. One of his daughters Smt. Anita Kumari was already

married and was not dependent upon him although she was arrayed as a

claimant. The learned Tribunal while computing compensation considered that a

sum of Rs.439.30/- would be the amount being spent by deceased on his own

upkeep and took the monthly dependency as Rs.800/- p.m. The learned Tribunal

applied multiplier of 11 in this case and arrived at a compensation payable to the

LRs of deceased as Rs.1,05,600/-. It is submitted by Counsel for the appellant

that deduction on self maintenance was wrongly taken even more than 1/3rd,

while the deceased was having more than four dependents. The Tribunal also

took into consideration a low multiplier of 11 whereas multiplier of 14 should have

been taken into account.

3. It is undisputed that deceased left behind a widow, two dependent

children (since one daughter was married) and his aged parents. Mother of the

deceased would also for all intents and purposes be considered as dependent on

the son in view of the advancing age of the father of the deceased. Thus, the

number of dependents of the deceased in this case was four. Smt. Sarla Verma

& Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. 2009 ACJ 1298, the Supreme Court

laid down a rule of thumb for calculating compensation. The deduction towards

personal expenses in case where dependents were 4-6 should be 1/4th of the

salary. Considering the salary of the deceased as Rs.1239/-, I consider that

around 1/4th i.e. Rs.309/- would have been proper deduction towards personal

expenses of the deceased and monthly dependency should be considered as

Rs.1239/- - Rs.309/- = Rs.930/- p.m. Since the deceased was working in Delhi

Police, he was bound to have regular increments and his future career would

have progressed with time and in view of judgment of Sarla Verma's case, his

age being 41 years 30% should have been added towards the future prospects.

Thus, a sum of Rs.279/- should have been added towards future prospects. The

proper multiplier as per Sarla Verma's case would be 14. Thus the claimants

would have been entitled to a compensation of Rs.(930+279) X 12 X 14 = Rs.

2,03,112/-. The dependants have also not been awarded compensation for loss

of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. I award Rs.5000/- each for

loss of estate and loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- as funeral expenses. Thus,

the total compensation, the claimants should have been awarded would come to

Rs.2,03,112/- + Rs.12,000/- = Rs.2,15,112/-. The award of the learned Tribunal

is accordingly modified and it is held that the appellants would be entitled to

compensation of Rs.2,15,112/- instead of Rs.1,05,600/- in the same proportion

4. It is argued by the Counsel for the insurance company that the

liability of insurance company was limited to Rs.1,50,000/- in this case since the

insurance policy issued by the insurance company was "Act only" policy. The

policy as issued by insurance company was proved before the Tribunal as Exh.

RW-1/8 and this policy would show that basic premium of Rs.200/- was charged

and insured sum value was written as "Act only". Thus, the liability of the

insurance company would be limited to Rs.1,50,000/- only and the insurance

company would be liable to pay Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest thereon while

the rest of the amount would be claimable from the owner of the truck. The

award of Tribunal is modified.

5. The appellants are held entitled to compensation of Rs.2,15,112/-

instead of Rs.1,05,600/-. The interest @ 12% on the amount as awarded by the

Tribunal and 7% on the enhanced compensation from the date of award i.e.

20.1.1997. The insurance company would be liable to pay additional amount

within its limited liability of Rs.1,50,000/- plus interest thereon and the remaining

amount would be recoverable from the owner of vehicle i.e. respondent no.1.

With this the appeal stands disposed of.

May 18, 2010                                   SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn