Delhi High Court
D.T.C. vs Smt. Satya Devi & Ors. on 28 April, 2011
Author: Reva Khetrapal
UNREPORTED
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC. APP. 367/2010
D.T.C. ..... Appellant
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat,
Advocate.
versus
SMT. SATYA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ranjan K.Pandey,
Advocate for the respondent
No.1.
% Date of Decision : April 28, 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?
O R D E R (ORAL)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
1. By way of this order, it is proposed to decide the appeal filed
by the Appellants against the judgment and award of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal dated 03.03.2010, whereby the Claims
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,34,196/- alongwith interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till
its realization in favour of respondents and against the appellants.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that on
26.06.1998, one Sh. Sarup Singh (hereinafter referred to as "the
deceased"), while de-boarding the offending bus bearing no. DEP-
9971, came under the rear wheel of the said bus and succumbed to his
injuries on 29.06.1998. A claim petition claiming compensation under
section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the
respondents no. 1 to 4 (being the widow and three children of the
deceased), against the appellants no. 1 and 2 (being the owner and the
driver respectively of the said offending bus).
3. The learned Tribunal, after noting that no evidence was placed
on record regarding the income of the deceased, proceeded to
calculate the loss of dependency of the respondents on the basis of
minimum wages payable to a semi-skilled worker on the date of the
accident, which were in the sum of Rs. 1,937/- per month. After
giving the benefit of doubling of minimum wages and after
deducting one-fourth towards the personal expenses of the deceased
and applying the multiplier of 8, the total loss of dependency suffered
by the respondents was calculated by the Tribunal to be in the sum of
Rs. 2,09,196/-. Adding thereto non-pecuniary damages in the sum of
Rs. 1,25,000/- under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total
compensation of Rs. 3,34,196/- to the respondents.
4. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, the learned Counsel for the appellants,
has challenged the aforesaid award of the Tribunal on the following
three grounds:
(i) The Claims Tribunal, even though relied upon the
judgment of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, failed to appreciate
that since the deceased was of 65 years of age, the appropriate
multiplier, as held in the said case, was the multiplier of 7.
Instead the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 8.
(ii) The Claims Tribunal while calculating the loss of
dependency of the respondents, erred in giving the benefit of
periodical increase in minimum wages due to inflationary
trends without having regard to the fact that the deceased was
65 years of age, which is the age of retirement and as such, no
future increase in income of the deceased could have been
taken into account.
(iii) The award of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and
affection is on the higher side.
5. Regarding the first ground pertaining to multiplier, I am in
agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant. It has been
noted by the Tribunal that as per the certified copies of MLC and
death summary report of the deceased, he was 65 years of age at the
time of his death and the said fact has not been disputed by the
respondents. However, the Tribunal, even after noting the age of the
deceased to be 65 years, applied the multiplier of 8, which is not in
consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Smt. Sarla Verma (supra). In the said case, the multiplier of 7 has
been held to be the appropriate multiplier for the age group of victims
between 61 to 65 years of age. The Tribunal, thus, ought to have
applied the multiplier of 7 in the instant case.
6. Adverting to the second contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant that the benefit of periodical increase in minimum
wages due to inflationary trends ought not to have been granted by
the Tribunal having regard to the fact that the age of the deceased was
65 years and he was nearing retirement, I find substance in this
contention of the learned counsel for the appellant as well. No benefit
on account of increase in minimum wages is called for as the age of
the deceased was 65 years.
7. As regards the last contention of the counsel for the appellants
that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded towards loss of love and
affection is on the higher side, I do not find any merit in the same.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the amount of compensation payable
to the respondents on account of loss of dependency has to be re-
computed without giving the benefit of rise in minimum wages on
account of inflation and by augmenting the multiplicand with the
multiplier of 7 instead of the multiplier of 8. Thus calculated, the loss
of dependency of the respondents works out to Rs. 1,22,031/- i.e Rs.
1,937/- x 12 x 7 x 3/4. Adding thereto, Rs. 1,25,000/- as non-
pecuniary damages, as awarded by the Tribunal, the total
compensation payable to the respondents comes out to Rs. 2,47,031/-.
The appellants shall pay this amount to the respondents alongwith
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till realization within 30 days of the receipt of the order by
the learned counsel for the appellants.
9. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms and stands
disposed of. A copy of this order be given to the counsel for the
appellants for compliance thereof.
10. The appellants shall be entitled to the release of sum of Rs.
25,000/- deposited in this Court as statutory deposit by them.
REVA KHETRAPAL
(JUDGE)
APRIL 28, 2011
ak
