United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Meva Devi & Others
2010 Latest Caselaw 5412 Del

                                    REPORTED
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                     MAC APP. NO. 316/2009


UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.         ..... Appellant
              Through: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate.


             versus


MEVA DEVI AND ORS.                                  ..... Respondents
             Through:           Mr. H.U. Haq, Advocate, for the
                                respondents no.1 to 5.



%                         Date of Reserve : October 18, 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?




MAC APP No. 316/2009                                         Page 1 of 8
 : REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

This appeal seeks to assail the Award dated 23 rd May, 2009

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby

compensation in the sum of ` 7,11,000/- has been awarded to the

respondents no.1 to 5 as legal representatives of the deceased Kabir

Singh on account of the fatal injuries sustained by Kabir Singh

(hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') in a motor vehicular

accident. The appellant is the Insurance Company with which the

offending car was insured and accordingly has been held liable to

indemnify the insured, viz., the respondent no.6 herein.

2. The case of the appellant is that the impugned Award is against

the law and evidence on record. Mr. D.K. Sharma, the learned

counsel for the appellant, contended that the respondents no.1 to 5,

though they alleged that the deceased was employed in Group-IV

Securities Guarding Ltd. and earning ` 3500/- per month, they failed

to prove the occupation and income of the deceased. No witness was

examined from Group-IV Securities Guarding Ltd. or any other

witness to prove that the deceased was working in Group-IV

Securities Guarding Ltd. PW-1, Smt. Meva Devi, the widow of the

deceased was the sole witness who examined herself for proving on

record the occupation and the income of the deceased. Thus,

according to the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no material

on record to prove that the deceased was even working for a

livelihood except the testimony of his widow, PW-1, Smt. Meva

Devi. He contended that in such circumstances, the future prospects

of the deceased should not have been considered while computing the

loss of dependency of the claimants, there being no evidence of any

nature whatsoever on record pertaining to his future prospects.

Further, it is contended by Mr. Sharma that the learned Tribunal erred

in adopting the multiplier of 17, and that keeping in view the age of

the deceased the multiplier of 16 should have been adopted to

augment the multiplicand.

3. Mr. H.U. Haq, the learned counsel for the respondents no.1 to

5, to rebut the contentions of Mr. D.K. Sharma, pointed out that

PW1, Smt. Meva Devi, in the course of her evidence had testified that

her husband was employed in Group-IV Securities Guarding Ltd. at

Gurgaon and was drawing a salary of ` 3500/- per month as a

permanent employee in the aforesaid company. PW1, Meva Devi

had also proved on record the salary certificate and salary slip of the

deceased as PW1/3 and PW1/4. The learned Tribunal, therefore,

erred in not accepting the said documentary evidence on record. The

deceased had a permanent job and his widow, his mother and the

minor children were, therefore, entitled to receive compensation,

keeping in view his future prospects.

4. I find from the records that the deceased was a matriculate, as

is clear from his Matriculation Certificate, Ex.PW1/1 and his date of

birth was 10th June, 1965. The date of the accident was 14th May,

2000, meaning thereby that at the time of the accident he was less

than 35 years of age. PW1, Meva Devi, has categorically stated in the

witness box that the deceased was earning a sum of ` 3500/- per

month from Group-IV Securities Guarding Ltd. and has placed on

record the salary slips of the deceased as Ex.PW1/3 and PW1/4,

which in fact show that the deceased was earning a sum of ` 3500/-

per month. I see no reason to doubt the testimony of this witness.

More so, when there is not even a suggestion put to the witness that

the said salary certificate and salary slip placed on record by her are

fake documents. It is well settled that the standard of proof in a case

under the Motor Accident Vehicles Act is not the same as in a

criminal case or in civil proceedings. Moreover, the deceased in the

instant case was working as a guard with a reputed security agency.

The salary slip placed on record is dated May'99 and presumably in

the said year, the deceased must have been earning the aforesaid sum

of money. He was in a regular job and was less than 35 years of age.

In due course of time, the deceased would certainly have earned

more and keeping in view the inflationary trend, it would be not

unreasonable to add 50% to his income towards future prospects, in

consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of

Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.

(2009) 6 SCC 121, as has been done by the Tribunal.

5. The learned Tribunal, however, rejected the salary certificate of

the deceased as not proved and for the purpose of calculation of loss

of dependency, proceeded on the basis of the matriculation certificate

of the deceased placed on record observing that the minimum wages

of a matriculate as on the date of the accident were ` 2867/-. The

Tribunal for the purpose of calculation rounded off the said figure to

` 2900/- and thereafter, keeping in view the law laid down by the

Supreme Court in General Manager Kerala Transport Road

Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas, reported as 1994 ACJ 1(SC)

and Smt.Sarla Dixit & Ors. Vs. Balwant Yadav & Ors., reported as

AIR 1996 SC 1274, calculated the gross average salary of the

deceased by taking the mean of the present and expected salary of the

deceased as ` 4350/-, i.e., ` 2900+` 5800=` 8700/2=` 4350/-.

Deducting one-fourth therefrom for the personal expenses of the

deceased, the Tribunal held that the monthly loss of dependency

comes to ` 4350-` 1087=` 3263/- and thus the yearly loss of

dependency comes to ` 3263x12=` 39,156/-. The Tribunal then

applied the multiplier of 17 as per the Second Schedule keeping in

view the fact that the deceased fell in the age group of 30-35 years

and worked out the actual loss of dependency to ` 39156x17=`

6,65,652/-, which if rounded off to Rs.6,66,000/-. Adding non-

technical damages to the aforesaid amount for loss of love and

affection and consortium (` 20,000/-), funeral expenses (` 10,000/-)

and loss to estate (` 5,000/-), the Tribunal held the appellant entitled

to a total compensation of ` 7,11,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a.

from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount.

6. Applying any yard stick, I do not find any infirmity in the

order of the Tribunal though it bears repetition that the Tribunal

ought to have taken the sum of ` 3500/- as salary of the deceased

instead of taking the minimum wages in the sum of ` 2900/-.

Calculated on that basis, the salary of the deceased after adding 50%

to the same towards future prospects would work out to ` 5250/- per

month, i.e., ` 63,000/- p.a. Deducting one-fourth therefrom keeping

in view the fact that the deceased had five dependants, the annual loss

of dependency works out to ` 47,250/-. Adopting the multiplier of 16

as set out in Sarla Verma's case (supra), the total loss of dependency

works out to ` 7,56,096/- and after adding the non-technical damages,

as awarded by the Tribunal to ` 7,81,000/-.

7. Thus viewed from any angle, the compensation awarded by the

learned Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive or more than the

amount to which the claimants are entitled. The award of the

Tribunal is, therefore, affirmed.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) November 29, 2010 sk