Daljit Kaur And Ors. vs Azad Singh And Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3835 Del

                                      UNREPORTED
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             FAO 43/2003

DALJIT KAUR AND ORS.                            ..... Appellants
                  Through:           Mr. O.P.Mannie, Advocate
         versus

AZAD SINGH AND ORS.                              ..... Respondents
                 Through:            Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa,
                                     Advocate for the respondent
                                     No.3/Insurance Company.
%                        Date of Decision :      August 09, 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. This appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 seeks to assail the award dated 16.10.2002 passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi, whereby a sum of

` 2,60,000/- was awarded to the appellants by way of compensation

for the untimely demise of one Shri Surinder Singh, who met with a

road accident on 10.12.1999, in which he sustained grievous injuries

to which he succumbed on the same day.

2. The sole contention of Mr. O.P.Mannie, the learned counsel for

the appellants, is that the manner of computation of the award amount

adopted by the learned Tribunal is not in accordance with the legal

principles laid down and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

from time to time. Mr. Mannie contends that the learned Tribunal

erred in rejecting the salary certificate of the deceased on the sole

ground that the proprietor himself did not appear in the witness box to

prove the same and instead sent the Manager of the firm to depose

with regard to the salary of the deceased. It is also contended by Mr.

Mannie that the learned Tribunal, while taking the minimum wage

rate for a semi-skilled workman for the purpose of assessment of the

income of the deceased, erroneously did not take into account the

future increase in his income, which was inevitable keeping in view

the fact that the deceased was only about 40 years of age at the time

of his demise.

3. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the deduction

of one-third from the income of the deceased for the personal

expenses and maintenance of the deceased was unjustified in view of

the fact that the deceased had left behind him a family comprising of

four dependant members, namely, his wife, two minor sons and

mother. According to Mr. Mannie, the learned Tribunal ought not to

have deducted more than the one-fourth of the income of the deceased

for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency of his legal

representatives.

4. As regards the multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal for

the purpose of augmenting the multiplicand constituting the loss of

dependency of the legal heirs of the deceased, Mr. Mannie submits

that even assuming the age of the deceased to be 42 years as assessed

by the learned Tribunal, the multiplier should be the multiplier of 15

in accordance with the Second Schedule appended to the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 and, in any case, the multiplier should not be

below the multiplier of 14, which has been held to be the appropriate

multiplier for the age group of deceased persons between 41 years to

45 years 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.

5. Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, the learned counsel for the respondent

No.3/Insurance Company, on the other hand, seeks to support the

award by contending that the amount of compensation awarded by the

learned Tribunal is just and fair, keeping in view all the facts and

circumstances of the case.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinized

the records, I am of the view that though the learned Tribunal (in

view of the fact that the appellants failed to place on record sufficient

proof regarding the income of the deceased) rightly resorted to the

wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act, yet the income

assessed by the learned Tribunal to be the income of the deceased at

the time of the accident relevant for the purpose of assessing the loss

of dependency of the appellants, is on the lower side and deserves to

be revised. It is well known that the minimum wages as notified by

the Government of India from time to time double in the course of ten

years, and it has therefore been the consistent view of various

Benches of this Court that while calculating the compensation on the

basis of minimum wages, the same have to be doubled and averaged

to provide for the rise in inflation and reduction in the value of

money. The following are some of the judgments of this Court

wherein the aforesaid view has been taken:

(i) Kanwar Devi vs. Bansal Roadways, 2008 ACJ 2182;

(ii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kailash Devi, II (2008)

ACC 770;

(iii) National Insurance Company Limited vs. Renu Devi,

III (2008) ACC 134;

      (iv)     UPSRTC vs. Munni Devi, IV (2009) ACC 879;

      (v)      Shanti Devi and Ors. vs. Ghasiya Khachhap and Ors.,

               ILR (2010) Delhi 412;

      (vi)     Jitender Kumar vs. Virender Singh, II (2010) ACC

               322;

(vii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sujata & Ors., MAC.

APP. No.19/2011 decided on January 21, 2011; and

(viii) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajni Devi &

Ors., 2011 (179) DLT 744.

7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, in the

present case also it would be appropriate to take into account the

minimum wages of the deceased on the date of the accident and after

doubling the same, to divide the sum total by two to arrive at the

average minimum wages per month, which the deceased would have

drawn during his lifetime. Thus calculated, the income of the

deceased works out to ` 3,771/- per month (Rupees three thousand

seven hundred and seventy one only) [that is ` 2,514/- (the wages of

the deceased on the date of the accident, as notified) plus ` 5028/-

(the anticipated wages of the deceased) divided by 2].

8. In view of the fact that the deceased had four family members

to support, I am inclined to agree with the contention of the learned

counsel for the appellants that he could not have been spending one-

third of his income on his own expenses and maintenance.

Accordingly, a deduction of one-fourth of the income of the deceased

towards his personal expenses would, in my view, be just and fair.

Thus calculated, the average monthly loss of dependency of the

deceased comes to ` 2,828.25 per month, that is, ` 33,939/- per

annum (Rupees thirty three thousand nine hundred and thirty nine

only).

9. With regard to the appropriate multiplier to be adopted for the

purpose of augmenting this multiplicand, I am at one with the learned

counsel for the appellants that the multiplier of 11 applied by the

learned Tribunal is on the lower side and the appropriate multiplier in

the instant case, having regard to the fact that the deceased fell in the

age group of 41 years to 45 years, would be the multiplier of 14,

which is also the multiplier approved of by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case Sarla Verma (supra). Accordingly, the total

amount of pecuniary compensation payable to the appellants works

out to ` 33,939 x 14 = ` 4,75,146/- (Rupees four lakhs seventy five

thousand one hundred and forty six only).

10. In view of the fact that the Tribunal, though has awarded a sum

of ` 10,000/- towards the loss of consortium and ` 7,384/- towards

the funeral expenses and last rites of the deceased, has not awarded

any amount towards the loss of estate of the deceased and the loss of

love and affection of the deceased, the sum of ` 10,000/- each is

awarded under these two non-pecuniary heads. Thus, in all, the

appellants are awarded a sum of ` 5,12,530/- , rounded off to `

5,12,500/-, including the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal

towards the loss of consortium of the appellant No.1 and the funeral

expenses and last rites of the deceased.

11. Resultantly, the award amount is enhanced by ` 2,52,500/- with

interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the institution

of the petition till the date of realisation. The respondent

No.3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount

of compensation along with the interest thereon within 30 days from

the date of the passing of this order.

12. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

13. The records of the learned Tribunal be sent back forthwith.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) August 09, 2011 ak