Kavita Arora vs Rajeev Kumar & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4031 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                    Date of Judgment: 18.8.2011


+      MAC APPEAL No.404/2011 AND MAC APPEAL
       No. 435/2011


KAVITA ARORA                                   ...........Appellant
                          Through:   Mr.Navneet Goyal, Advocate.

                   Versus

RAJEEV KUMAR & ORS.                            ..........Respondents
                  Through:           Mr.R.C.Mahajan, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?             Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                          Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. These two appeals have impugned the Award dated

15.5.2011 whereby on the claim petition preferred by Kavita

Arora, the widow of deceased Ramesh Arora and mother of minor

Child Dev Arora; compensation in the sum of `14,11,386/- had been

awarded qua the death of her husband; a sum of `5,90,000/- had

been awarded qua the death of her minor child.

2. The grievance of the claimant qua the claim of her husband

is two-fold; her contention is that although the salary of the victim

had been computed correctly in terms of his income tax return for

the year 2007-2008, yet the benefit of future prospects, cost rise

as also price index inflation had not been given. 50% should have

accorded on this count. For this submission reliance has been

placed upon a judgment of Dalvinder Kaur Vs. United India

Insurance Ltd. reported in IV(2010) ACC 365. In this case the

deceased was aged 38 years; he was a building contractor; income

tax return had been filed; a Bench of this Court placing reliance

upon the judgment of R.K.Malik Vs. Kiran Pal IV(2009) SLT 146

as also the judgment of Baby Radhika Gupta Vs. Oriental

Insurance Company reported in VIII(2009) SLT 642 had added

50% towards future prospects of the deceased and the income

was computed accordingly. There is no reason as to why the ratio

of this judgment should not be made applicable in this instant

case also. The income tax return for the last two preceding years

i.e. for 2006-07 shows the gross income of the victim in the sum of

`1,05,100/- and for the year 2007-08 showing his gross income in

the sum of `1,12,181/- are a part of the trial court. The business

of the victim was the sale-purchase of vehicles; the income tax

returns had showed an inflation in his income in the last two

years. There was no reason to overlook the fact that in the

following ten years the income of the victim would have doubled.

50% is liable to be added on this count.

3. The second grievance of the petitioner qua the claim of her

husband is that the Tribunal had directed the Insurance Company

to deposit the FDR in the Bank at Chandani Chowk which is

unsuitable for the claimant because the claimant is a resident of

Tilak Nagar; this direction be modified and the amount be

directed to be deposited in a suitable bank at Tilak Nagar. This

submission has force.

4. Keeping in view the aforenoted scenario the modified award

in the case of Ramesh Arora shall accordingly read as under:

`1,12,181 + `56,091 (50% of `1,12,181) =1,68,271.50 (rounded off to `1,68,272) - `56,091 (1/3 dependency) =`1,12,181 x 17= `19,07,077.

5. The amount of `25,000/- towards funeral charges,

`1,00,000/- towards love and affection and `10,000/- towards loss

of consortium and `5,000/- towards loss of estate remain

unchanged.

6. Total amount calculated is thus `19,07,077 + `1,40,000 =

`20,47,077 along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date

of filing of the petition till the date of realization minus any

amount received as an interim compensation is accordingly

awarded. The impugned Award is also modified to the extent that

instead of the amount being deposited in the Bank of

Maharashtra, Chandani Chowk Branch the Insurance Company is

directed to deposit the amount in the UCO Bank, Tilak Nagar

Branch. The other directions contained in the Award will remain

unmodified.

7. The appeal has also challenged the compensation awarded

qua the death of the child Dev Arora. Contention is that the

guidance has been taken from the Second Schedule of the Motor

Vehicle Act (M.V.Act) which is applicable to claim petition under

Section 163 A of the M.V.Act and not to the petition under Section

166 of the M.V.Act; further contention is that the income of the

child should have been taken as that of an unskilled worker. Last

contention is that the amount directed to be deposited by the

Insurance Company in the Chandani Chowk Branch is also

unsuitable for the same reason that the claimant is residing at

Tilak Nagar and the branch of the Bank at Chandani Chowk is not

accessible to her.

8. The Award qua the compensation awarded for the death of

the minor child suffers from no infirmity. The Tribunal has noted

that the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company

Ltd. Vs. Farzana & Ors. in MAC APPEAL No.13/2007 decided on

14.7.2009 which had laid down the principles for ascertaining

compensation on account of the death of a minor child; the

notional income as mentioned in the Second Schedule was rightly

taken into account of `15,000/- per annum to which multiplier of

15 has to be applied i.e. equivalent to `2,25,000/-. In terms of the

judgment of R.K.Malik (supra) `75,000/- has been awarded

towards future prospects as also another sum of `75,000/- has

been awarded as non-pecuniary damages; total amount of

`3,75,000/- has been awarded on account of the death of the child;

a sum of `2,15,000/- has further been awarded on account of the

expenses of medical bills incurred on the medical treatment of the

child; bills of `1,89,482/- had been produced and `25,000/- has

been awarded as compensation for special diet and conveyance to

the claimant; total amount of `5,90,000/- has been awarded qua

the claim of the death of the child. The Award qua this claim

suffers from no infirmity. It requires no modification except that

the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation

amount in the UCO Bank, Tilak Nagar, Branch which amount will

be disbursed to the claimant Kavita Arora in terms of the

directions contained in the Award.

9. With these directions both the appeals are disposed of.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

AUGUST 18, 2011 nandan