Smt. Shanta Sharma & Ors. vs Bishan Singh & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3639 Del

                                      UNREPORTED
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                      FAO 278/2002


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

                  versus


BISHAN SINGH & ORS.                         ..... Respondents
                  Through:            Ms. Shantha Devi Raman,
                                      Advocate for the respondent
                                      No.3


%                          Date of Decision : August 01, 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?

                           JUDGMENT

: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 has been filed against the judgment and award of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, New Delhi dated 27.02.2002 passed in

Suit No.693/2001.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that

one Shri B.D. Sharma aged 52 years died in a motor vehicular

accident on 08.07.1992. A Claim Petition claiming compensation of

` 10,00,000/- from the owner, driver and insurer of the offending

vehicle was filed by the widow, son and married daughter of the

deceased. The learned Claims Tribunal by its award dated

27.02.2002 awarded a total compensation of ` 6,80,000/- to the

appellants/claimants payable by the respondent No.3-insurer

alongwith interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum.

3. The learned Claims Tribunal, after taking into account all the

facts and circumstances, assessed the income of the deceased for the

purpose of computing the loss of dependency suffered by the

appellants to be in the sum of ` 7,500/- per month or ` 90,000/- per

annum. The said income of the deceased was reduced by one-third,

being the personal and living expenses of the deceased, thereby

arriving at a sum of ` 60,000/-. To augment this multiplicand, the

Claims Tribunal applied the multiplier of 11, as provided in the

Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the age group

of victims between 50 and 55 years. The loss of dependency of the

appellants was, thus, assessed by the Claims Tribunal to be in the sum

of ` 6,60,000/- (that is ` 60,000/- x 11). In addition to this, the

Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of ` 20,000/- towards non-pecuniary

damages, including loss of consortium and loss of love and affection.

Thus, the Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation to the

appellants in the sum of ` 6,80,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of

9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, that is,

17.11.1992, till the date of realisation.

4. Aggrieved by the said quantum of compensation, the appellants

have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the same to the

tune of ` 10,00,000/-. The sole contention of Mr. Navneet Goyal, the

learned counsel for the appellants, is that the future increase in the

income of the deceased has not been considered by the learned

Tribunal while computing the compensation payable to the appellants.

Mr. Goyal contended that the deceased, who was working as a

Section Officer in the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, New

Delhi, was likely to be promoted to the post of Under Secretary,

earning a monthly salary of around ` 15,000/- p.m. to ` 20,000/- p.m.

Alternatively, it was contended by Mr. Goyal that after the

implementation of recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission, the

salary of the deceased in the same post would have risen to around

` 15,000/- p.m. to ` 20,000/- p.m. Mr. Goyal further submitted that

the deceased was also planning to set up a mushroom growing farm

after his retirement. Reference in this behalf was made to the

testimony of PW-4 Smt. Shanta Sharma, the widow of the deceased,

who testified that her husband had done a course in mushroom

farming from Himachal Pradesh and was planning to open a

mushroom farm after his retirement. PW-4, in her testimony, further

stated that the deceased had also done a course in 'Homeopathy'

from Shimla (H.P.) and was a registered practitioner under the

Himachal Pradesh Homeopathic Practitioner's Act, 1979. The said

witness placed on record certificate Ex.PW4/A with regard to the

course of mushroom farming and certificate Ex.PW4/B with regard to

the course of 'Homeopathy'. On the basis of aforesaid, the learned

counsel for the appellants claimed that the compensation awarded by

the learned Tribunal was on the lower side and the same be enhanced

to ` 10,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

5. Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, the learned counsel for the

respondent No.3, on the other hand, sought to support the award of

the learned Tribunal, by contending that the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal was fair and just and there was no scope for the

enhancement of the same.

6. I find from a perusal of the record that the deceased was a

Section Officer in Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India at New

Delhi. The service record of the deceased was produced before the

learned Tribunal by PW2 Shri I.P. Sharma, Senior Field Officer,

Cabinet Secretariat as Ex. PW2/A. According to the said record, the

date of birth of the deceased was 01.01.1940 and the date of his

retirement was 31.12.1997, meaning thereby that the deceased was 52

years of age on the date of the accident. PW2 - I.P.Sharma testified

that the salary of the deceased at the time of his death was ` 4,644/-

per month and had he not died, he would have received a salary of `

4,864/- per month with effect from 01.01.1993. He further deposed

that at the time of his retirement, the deceased would have received a

salary of ` 10,480/- per month.

7. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the aforesaid testimony

of PW-2, assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be in the

sum of ` 7,500/- p.m. (being approximately the mean of his income

at the time of the accident and his income at the time of retirement).

Thus, it is sufficiently clear from the record that the learned Tribunal

while computing the loss of dependency suffered by the appellants,

has given due regard to the oral and documentary evidence placed on

record by the appellants. It is also noteworthy that PW-2, in his

testimony, nowhere suggested that the deceased was likely to be

promoted to the post of Under Secretary or that his salary would have

increased to ` 15,000/- to ` 20,000/- per month after the

implementation of Fifth Pay Commission. In these circumstances,

the assessment of monthly income of the deceased in the sum of `

7,500/- per month is justified and no interference in respect thereof is

warranted.

8. Before parting with the case it may be mentioned that no

grievance was raised by the appellant's counsel at the time of

arguments with regard to deduction of one-third of the income of the

deceased towards his personal expenses or with regard to the

multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal for working out the

compensation due to the appellants. Nothing further, therefore,

survives to be considered in the present appeal.

9. Resultantly, in my opinion, there is no infirmity in the award of

the Tribunal with respect to the quantum of compensation and no

ground for enhancement is made out. The appeal is accordingly

dismissed.

10. The records of the Claims Tribunal be sent back forthwith.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) August 01, 2011 ak