Rekha Singhal And Ors. vs Khushal Mani And Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3871 Del

                                        REPORTED
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                    FAO 758/2003


      REKHA SINGHAL AND ORS.           ..... Appellants
                  Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate.

                  versus


      KHUSHAL MANI AND ORS.                       ..... Respondents
                  Through: None.


%                          Date of Decision :   August 10, 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 seeks to assail the judgment and award of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahdara, Delhi dated 14th August,

2003, whereby a sum of ` 4,75,000/- with interest at the rate of 8%

per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of

realization was awarded in favour of the appellants for the untimely

demise of one Sh. S.K.Singhal in a motor vehicular accident which

took place on 02.06.1998.

2. The sole grievance of Mr. Navneet Goyal, the learned counsel

for the appellants, is that the appellants have been awarded a very

meager amount of compensation keeping in view the fact that the

deceased was a qualified Engineer and was in a stable job with the

Government of India. The following contentions have been raised by

Mr. Goyal with regard to the manner of calculation of the award

amount by the learned Tribunal:

(i) The learned Tribunal erred in assessment of the income

of the deceased, in as much as the salary certificate of the

deceased proved on record as Exhibit PW-9/A depicts the

income of the deceased at the time of the accident to be in the

sum of ` 5,609/- per month, yet the learned Tribunal assessed

the income of the deceased to be in the sum of ` 3,000/- per

month without any justification.

(ii) The learned Tribunal as a consequence of wrongly

assessing the income of the deceased wrongly assessed the

future increase in the income of the deceased in the sum of `

6,000/- per month, and accordingly the average monthly

income of the deceased has not been properly assessed.

(iii) The learned Tribunal erroneously deducted one-third of

the award amount towards the personal expenses of the

deceased whereas, keeping in view the fact that the deceased

left behind him four dependant family members, the deduction

should not have been more than one-fourth of the income of the

deceased towards his personal expenses and maintenance.

(iv) The learned Tribunal awarded no amount whatsoever

under the non-pecuniary heads of loss of estate of the deceased,

loss of the consortium and loss of love and affection to the

appellants.

3. At the time of the hearing none appeared on behalf of the

respondents, although the matter was adjourned on two occasions in

view of the fact that the counsel for the respondents was not present.

This court, therefore, did not have the opportunity of hearing the

learned counsel for the respondents.

4. After hearing Mr. Navneet Goyal, the learned counsel for the

appellants, and scrutinizing the certified copies of the documents

placed on record, I am inclined to hold that the computation of

compensation payable to the appellants by the learned Tribunal is not

in accordance with the legal principles enunciated by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in its various decisions from time to time.

Accordingly, I am left with no option except to recalculate the

compensation payable to the appellants.

5. A bare glance at the salary certificate Exhibit PW-9/A proved

on record by the widow of the deceased PW-9 - Smt. Rekha Singhal

shows that the salary of the deceased inclusive of DA, CCA and HRA

(and after excluding the travelling allowance, washing allowance, tool

allowance and cycle allowance) was in the sum of ` 5,454/- per

month. It may be mentioned that the salary of the deceased as

reflected in Exhibit PW2/2, which is the 'Statement of Pay and

Allowances' of the deceased, proved on record by PW-2-Shri

K.R.Verma, J.E. (Electrical), PWD Electrical Division and certified

by the Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer, is also the same,

and there is thus no manner of doubt that the salary of the deceased

on the date of the accident was ` 5,454/- per month.

6. As regards the future prospects of the deceased, keeping in

view the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and

Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, an addition of 30% to the income of the

deceased must be made in view of the fact that the deceased was

indisputably 44 years of age and thus fel1 in the age group of 40 years

to 50 years at the time of his demise. Thus calculated, the average

monthly income of the deceased comes to ` 7,090/- (Rupees seven

thousand and ninety only) per month (` 5,454/- per month + ` 1,636/-

per month = ` 7,090/- per month). In view of the fact that the

deceased had left behind him four dependant family members viz. his

widow, two children and widowed mother, a deduction of one-fourth

of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and

maintenance would, in my view, be justified. This is also in

consonance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Thus, deducting one-

fourth (1/4th) from the average monthly income of the deceased, the

average loss of dependency of the appellants comes to ` 5,317.50 per

month, that is, ` 63,810/- per annum.

7. As regards the appropriate multiplier to be adopted in the

present case, although the multiplier of 15 has been considered by the

learned Tribunal to be the appropriate multiplier for assessing the loss

of dependency of the appellants, I am inclined to adopt the multiplier

of 14, which is the tabulated multiplier approved by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), where the age of the

deceased falls in the age group of 41 years to 45 years. Applying the

multiplier of 14, the total loss of dependency of the appellants works

out to ` 8,93,340/-, that is, ` 63,810/- x 14 = ` 8,93,340/- (Rupees

Eight Lakh Ninety Three Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Only).

8. Apart from aforesaid amount of pecuniary damages, the

appellants must also be held entitled to the sum of ` 5,000/- awarded

to them by the learned Tribunal on account of the expenses incurred

by them for bringing the dead body from Dehradun to Delhi as well

as for the funeral expenses. As regards the non-pecuniary damages,

the Tribunal has awarded a sum of ` 20,000/- under the head of pain

and suffering. Since non-pecuniary damages under the aforesaid head

cannot, in law, be awarded where the deceased instantaneously dies in

the accident, it is deemed expedient to award a sum of ` 10,000/-

towards loss of estate, ` 10,000/- towards loss of consortium and

` 20,000/- towards loss of love and affection of the deceased to the

appellants. The total compensation payable to the appellants, thus,

works out to ` 9,38,000/- (rounded off).

6. In view of the aforesaid, the award amount stands enhanced by

a sum of ` 4,63,000/-. Interest on the said amount shall also be

payable by the respondents No.1 and 2 at the rate of 7.5% per annum

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

realization. Fifty per cent of the award amount shall enure to the

benefit of the appellant No.1 and the balance shall be proportionately

divided between the appellants No.2 to 4.

7. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.

8. Records of the learned Tribunal be sent back to the concerned

Tribunal.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) August 10, 2011 ak