Urmila Devi & Ors. vs Jeet Singh & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 2069 Del

                                        REPORTED
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     FAO 56/1990 and CM Nos.5057/2006 and 16296/2008


URMILA DEVI & ORS.                                 ..... Appellants
                             Through:   Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate

                    versus


JEET SINGH & ORS.                                   ..... Respondents
                             Through:   Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for
                                        the respondent No.4


%                            Date of Decision : April 18, 2011

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?

                             ORDER (Oral)

: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. The appellants seek enhancement of the compensation awarded

to them by the Claims Tribunal by its award dated 14.09.1989. The

brief facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are that the deceased

Dev Karan was sitting on the pillion seat of a motor cycle bearing

No.HRP 3706, which was hit by a truck being driven rashly and

negligently, as a result of which Dev Karan sustained fatal injuries.

He was survived by his widow, three children and parents, who

instituted a claim petition claiming compensation for his untimely

death from the respondents No.1 to 4 - the respondent No.1 being the

driver of the alleged offending truck, the respondents No.2 and 3

being the owners thereof and the respondent No.4 being the insurance

company with which the said truck was insured.

2. The learned Claims Tribunal, while deciding the issue

pertaining to the amount of compensation to which the appellants

were entitled held that, on the evidence adduced by the appellants it

stood proved on record that the total emoluments of the deceased,

who was an employee of DESU, were about ` 720/- per month. After

making an allowance for the amount that the deceased would have

spent upon himself and keeping in view the principles laid down by

the Full Bench in the case of Lachman Singh vs. Gurmit Kaur 1979

ACJ 170 (Punjab and Haryana), the dependency of the appellants

was assessed at the rate of ` 600/- per month. Further, in view of the

fact that the deceased Shri Dev Karan was about 33 years of age, the

multiplier of 16 was applied by the Claims Tribunal and the total

compensation assessed to be in the sum of ` 1,15,200/-, i.e., ` 600/- x

12 x 16. The appellants were accordingly held entitled to the

aforesaid amount with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the

filing of the petition till its realization.

3. Mr. Navneet Goyal, the learned counsel for the appellants

claims enhancement of this amount principally on two grounds. His

first contention is that the learned Tribunal failed to take into account

the future prospects of increase in the income of the deceased Dev

Karan, who died at a comparatively young age and would have

certainly progressed in life. His second contention is that the learned

Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount whatsoever

towards the various heads of non-pecuniary compensation and that

the appellants are accordingly entitled to the grant thereof.

4. Mr. Pankaj Seth, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 -

Insurance Company, though sought to support the award was not able

to show any flaw in the aforesaid two contentions of Mr. Goyal.

Even otherwise, it being settled law that the future prospects of the

deceased must be taken into account while calculating the loss of

dependency of his legal representatives, the appellants deserve an

enhanced amount of compensation on this score, apart from the grant

of non-pecuniary benefits in addition. Thus, taking into account the

fact that the deceased was 33 years of age, an addition of 50% must

be made to his assessed income. Deducting 1/4th therefrom in view of

the fact that the deceased had six dependents, the loss of dependency

per month of the appellants works out to ` 810/- per month, that is, `

720/- plus ` 360/- = ` 1080/- divided by 4 = ` 270/- per month x 3 =

` 810/- per month. Thus calculated, the total loss of dependency of

the appellants works out to ` 810/- x 12 x 16 = ` 1,55,520/-.

5. Apart from the aforesaid amount of pecuniary damages, the

appellants are held entitled to a sum of ` 2,500/- for loss of

consortium, another sum of ` 2,500/- towards loss of estate and the

sum of ` 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, in all a sum of ` 7,000/-

towards non-pecuniary damages. Thus, the total compensation works

out to ` 1,62,520/- (that is, ` 1,55,520/- plus ` 7,000/-) alongwith

interest @ 12% per annum. The enhanced amount of compensation

shall be paid by the Insurance Company to the appellants within 30

days from today by depositing the aforesaid amount with the

Registrar General of this Court.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. CM

Nos.5057/2006 and 16296/2008 also stand disposed of.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) April 18, 2011 km