Smt.Chanderwati & Others vs Harvinder Singh & Others
2010 Latest Caselaw 5404 Del

                                    REPORTED
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     FAO NO.209/1995


SMT. CHANDERWATI & ORS.                 ..... Appellants
            Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate.


             versus


HARVINDER SINGH & ORS.                    ..... Respondents
             Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate, for the
                       respondent no.3-Insurance Company.



%                         Date of Reserve : November 10, 2010
                          Date of Decision : November 29, 2010


CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

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?




FAO NO. 209/1995                                       Page 1 of 7
 : REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

The appellants in the present appeal pray for enhancement of

the amount of compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, by its Award dated 6th July, 1995.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are not in

dispute. On 22nd July, 1986, one Ram Kumar Rana, aged 39 years

was going on a motorcycle driven by Surinder @ Yoginder as a

pillion rider. At about 7.50 p.m. when the motorcycle was on the

G.T. Karnal Road, near DDA Central Store, it was hit by a truck

which had crossed the central verge. The motorcycle was dragged for

some distance and both the driver of the motorcycle and Ram Kumar

Rana, who was the pillion rider, suffered grievous injuries. Ram

Kumar Rana (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') succumbed to

the injuries received by him. His legal heirs being his widow, his five

children and parents filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act,1988 claiming a sum of ` 15,40,000/- as

compensation against the respondent no.1 (the driver of the offending

vehicle), the respondent no.2 (the owner of the offending vehicle) and

the respondent no.3 (the insurer thereof).

3. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, after appraisal of

the evidence adduced by the claimants, including the two eye-

witnesses to the accident, held the respondent no.1 guilty of rash and

negligent driving and proceeded to compute the loss of dependency of

the claimants. It held that the monthly income of the deceased was

` 1500/- per month from his employment as cashier in the Delhi

Transport Corporation and after taking into consideration the future

prospects of the deceased, held the income of the deceased for the

purpose of computing the compensation payable to the appellants to

be ` 3000/- per month, i.e. ` 36,000/- per annum. After deducting

one-third for the personal expenses of the deceased from the said

amount, the loss of dependency was held by the Tribunal to be `

2000/- per month, i.e. ` 24,000/- per annum. The multiplier of 12

was applied to this multiplicand and an award passed in favour of the

appellant and against the respondents, jointly and severally, in the

sum of ` 2,88,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of

the petition till the date of realization.

4. Mr. Navneet Goyal, the learned counsel for the appellant, at the

outset, very fairly submitted that though the income of the deceased

was stated to be ` 3500/- per month in the claim petition, that is, a

sum of ` 1485.61 as an employee in the Delhi Transport Corporation

and a sum of ` 2000 from dairy farming and agriculture, there was

no documentary evidence to show that the deceased was engaged in

dairy farming and agriculture. As such the income of the deceased

may be taken to be in the sum of ` 1500/- per month. As regards the

future prospects of the deceased, Mr. Goyal submitted that though

applying the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of

General Manager, K.S.R.T.C vs. Susamma Thomas (1996) 3 SCC

179, the income of the deceased, after taking into account his future

prospects, had been assessed by the learned Tribunal at ` 3000/- per

month, the income of the deceased may be taken to be ` 2250/- per

month by addition of 50% to his actual income in consonance with

the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Ors. vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009)6 SCC 121. He

submitted that a deduction of 1/5th (one-fifth) from the total income

was required to be made towards the personal expenses of the

deceased, keeping in view the fact that at the time of the accident, the

deceased had eight dependants; and the multiplier in accordance with

Sarla Verma's case (supra) should be the multiplier of 15, keeping in

view the age of the deceased.

5. Mr. Pankaj Seth, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3

was not able to point out any flaw in this method of calculation except

to state that three of the claimants had died during the pendency of the

appeal and as such the deduction of 1/5th (one-fifth) from the income

of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses was not

justified. There is, in my view, no merit in this submission.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the records, in my opinion, the award deserves to be

modified, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). It is not in dispute that the

salary of the deceased at the time of his demise was 1500/- per month

(rounded off). Taking into account the future prospects of the

deceased and adding 50% of the aforesaid salary, the monthly income

of the deceased works out to ` 2250/- per month. The loss of

dependency after deducting 1/5th (one-fifth) therefrom towards the

personal expenses of the deceased works out to ` 1800 per month, i.e.

` 21,600/- per annum. The appropriate multiplier, keeping in view

that the deceased was 39 years of age, would be 15, and thus, the total

loss of dependency comes to 3,24,000/- (i.e. ` 21,600/- x 15 =

` 3,24,000/-). Apart from this, the appellants would also be entitled

to ` 5000/- towards the funeral expenses of the deceased and a further

sum of ` 10,000/- towards loss of estate. The appellant no.1 would

also be entitled to receive a sum of ` 10,000/- for loss of consortium,

i.e. a total sum of ` 3,49,000/-. The awarded amount is enhanced

accordingly, i.e. from ` 2,88,000/- to ` 3,49,800/-.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the appellants are held entitled to

receive an enhanced amount of ` 61,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per

annum, apart from the amount awarded by the Tribunal with interest

@ 12% per annum. The enhanced amount shall be paid to the

appellant no.1, who is the widow of the deceased along with the

interest thereon.

8. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) November 29, 2010 sk