Smt. Rajesh & Others vs Sh. Heera Lal & Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 3669 Del

                                      UNREPORTED
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 FAO 479/2002

SMT. RAJESH & OTHERS                        ..... Appellants
              Through:           Mr. Ashok Popli and Mr. Navneet
                                 Goyal, Advocates.

            versus


SH. HEERA LAL & OTHERS                     ..... Respondents
              Through: Mr. Ram N. Sharma, Advocate
                       for the respondent No.3 - Insurance
                       Company.


%                        Date of Decision :    August 02, 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 (ORAL)

: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. The appellants in this appeal seek to assail the judgment and

award dated 29.05.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Delhi awarding compensation to the appellants in the sum

of ` 5,51,384/- (Rupees five lakh fifty one thousand three hundred

and eighty four only) for the untimely demise of Sh. Naresh Kumar

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

accident, which took place on 30.1.96.

2. A three-fold grievance has been raised by Mr. Ashok Popli, the

learned counsel for the appellants with regard to the manner of

computation of the award amount by the learned Tribunal. The first

contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that though the

Tribunal had rightly estimated the salary of the deceased constable in

the sum of ` 4,744/- (Rupees four thousand seven hundred and forty

four only) per month after adding 50% to his actual salary on the date

of the accident, that is, ` 3,163/- (Rupees three thousand one hundred

and sixty three only) per month, the Tribunal erred in making the

deduction of one-third towards his personal and living expenses.

According to Mr. Popli, keeping in view the fact that the appellant

left behind him his young widow, two minor sons and parents, a

deduction of not more than one-fourth of the salary of the deceased

ought to have been made by the learned Tribunal for arriving at the

figure constituting the loss of dependency of the appellants. I am

inclined to agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the

appellants, which is in consonance with the guidelines laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors.

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

regard to the manner in which the deduction is to be made towards the

personal and living expenses of the deceased. In the said case, it was

observed as follows:-

"Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd ) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six."

3. Calculated in the aforesaid manner and after deducting one-

fourth (1/4th) of the income of the deceased towards his personal

expenses and maintenance, the loss of dependency of the appellants

comes to ` 3, 558/- (Rupees three thousand five hundred and fifty

eight only) per month, that is to say, ` 42,696/- (Rupees forty two

thousand six hundred and ninety six only) per annum.

4. The second contention of Mr. Popli on behalf of the appellants

is with regard to the appropriate multiplier to be adopted for

augmenting the annual loss of dependency of the appellants. It is his

contention that having regard to the fact that the deceased was

admittedly 28 years old at the time of the accident, the multiplier of

18 would be the appropriate multiplier as set out in the II Schedule to

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and that the trial court erred in applying

the multiplier of 14 on the basis of the judgments of this court in the

cases of Pragya Chopra and Others Vs. Ranjeet Singh and Others,

2002 IV AD (Delhi) 302; and Sukarma Kher and Others Vs. N.K.

Nagin Chander and Others, 2002 IV AD (Delhi) 337.

5. As regards the multiplier, I am of the view that though the trial

court erred in applying the multiplier of 14 for the purpose of

computing the loss of dependency of the appellants, however, the

multiplier of 18, which is sought to be pressed into service by the

learned counsel for the appellants is also not the appropriate

multiplier in the present case. Had the petition been filed under

Section 163-A of the Act, the said multiplier would have been the

appropriate multiplier but keeping in view the fact that the present

petition is one under Section 166 of the Act, the appropriate

multiplier would be the multiplier of 17, which is the tabulated

multiplier by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma

(supra) for the age group of deceased between 26 to 30 years of age.

Thus calculated, the total compensation payable to the appellants

comes to ` 42, 696/- X 17 = ` 7,25,832/- (Rupees seven lakh twenty

five thousand eight hundred and thirty two only).

6. The third and the last contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant is that apart from awarding a sum of ` 25,000/- (Rupees

twenty five thousand only) towards the loss of consortium to the

widow of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any

non-pecuniary damages to the appellants such as those under the

heads of loss of love and affection, loss of estate of the deceased and

funeral expenses of the deceased. Indisputably, in my view, the

appellants are entitled to the award of damages under the aforesaid

heads and accordingly a sum of ` 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand

only) under each of the aforesaid heads deserves to be added to the

award amount. The total compensation payable to the appellants,

thus, works out to be ` 7,80,832/- (Rupees seven lakh eighty

thousand eight hundred and thirty two only).

7. In view of the aforesaid, the award amount is enhanced by the

sum of ` 2,29,448/- (Rupees two lakh twenty nine thousand four

hundred and forty eight only), which may be rounded off to `

2,30,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and thirty thousand only). Interest on

the aforesaid sum of money shall be payable at the rate of 7.5% per

annum from the date of the institution of the petition till the date of

payment.

8. The Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount within

a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this award, failing

which it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum

till the realization of the award amount. On the deposit of the award

amount, the learned Tribunal shall pass orders with regard to the

apportionment and disbursement of the same to the appellants.

9. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.

10. Records of the learned Tribunal be sent back to the learned

Tribunal forthwith with a copy of this order.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) AUGUST 02, 2011 sk