Delhi High Court
Shyam Sunder & Anr. vs Sunil Sharma & Anr. on 2 December, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 25th November, 2011
Pronounced on: 2nd December, 2011
+ MAC APP. 224/2010
SHYAM SUNDER & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Manish Mannie, Adv.
Versus
SUNIL SHARMA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M. K. Tiwari, Adv. for Insurance
Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. This appeal is for enhancement of compensation in respect of
death of Anuj Sharma, who was aged about 25 years at the time
of accident, which took place on 07.12.1999. The Motor
Accident Tribunal by the impugned award dated 08.12.2009
granted a compensation of ` 6,14,275/-.
2. The contentions raised on Appellant's behalf are: -
(i) The deceased was offered a salary of $ 50,000 per year
by the letter dated 27.09.1999 mark 'A'. The deceased
was to join his new employment in USA. The deceased's
salary, therefore, ought to have been considered $ 50,000
per year and compensation should have been granted
accordingly.
(ii) The multiplier should have been applied as per the
deceased's age, which was 25 years or in any case as per
mother's age which was 42 years on 06.09.1991
according to the photocopy of the Ration Card and thus
50 years at the time of accident.
(iii) The accident took place on 07.12.1999, the deceased
succumbed to the injuries on 21.12.1999, therefore, some
compensation ought to have been awarded on account of
pain and suffering.
CONTENTION NO.1
3. I have gone through the offer of appointment purported to be
given by M/s. R. Systems INC. The authenticity of this letter
was not proved. Moreover, page 6 of this letter clearly shows
that the offer was valid for 15 days from the date of letter thus
the offer lapsed on 12.10.1999. In this view of the matter the
letter mark 'A' cannot be taken into consideration to determine
the Appellant's dependency.
CONTENTION NO.2
4. After taking note of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176; Sarla Dixit v. Balwant
Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179; Abati Bezbaruah v. Geological
Survey of India, (2003) 2 SCC 148, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
laid down the following principles grant of compensation in
death cases in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi
Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 as under: -
"I. MULTIPLIER
Age of the deceased Multiplier
(in years)
II. DEDUCTION FOR PERSONAL AND LIVING
EXPENSES
Deceased - unmarried
(i) Deduction towards personal expenses.
: 1/2 (50%)
(ii)
Deduction where the family of the
bachelor is large and dependent on the
income of the deceased.
: 1/3rd (33.33%)
Deceased - married
(i) 2 to 3 dependent family members. : 1/3rd
(ii) 4 to 6 dependent family members : 1/4th
(iii) More than 6 family members : 1/5th
(iv) Subject to the evidence to the
contrary. : Father, brother and
sisters will not be
considered as
dependents.
III. FUTURE PROSPECTS
(i) Permanent job : Actual salary - tax + 50%
Below 40 years of age towards future prospects.
(ii) Permanent job : Actual salary - tax + 30%
Between 40-50 years towards future prospects.
(iii) More than 50 years with: Actual salary only.
permanent job. No addition for future
prospects.
(iv) Deceased employed at a fixed: Only actual income to be
Salary (without provision for taken. No addition.
Annual increments)"
IV. NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES
(i) Compensation for loss of estate : ` 5,000/- to
` 10,000/-
(ii) Compensation for loss of consortium : ` 5,000/- to
` 10,000/-
(iii) Compensation for pain and sufferings : Nil
and hardship
(iv) Funeral expenses, cost of transportation : Actual
of body and medical expenses"
5. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that as per
Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation, it was
held that age of the deceased was to be taken into consideration
for the purpose of selection of multiplier. This position,
according to the learned counsel, was clarified by the Supreme
Court in the later decision in P.S. Somnathan & Ors. v. District
Insurance Officer & Ors., 2011 (3) SCC 566.
6. I am not inclined to agree with the contention raised on
Appellant's behalf. In Sarla Verma (supra) the Supreme Court
considered and approved U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors., 1996 (4) SCC
362 where it was laid down that while applying the multiplier
the age of the claimant or that of the deceased, whichever is
higher is to be considered. It is very obvious that the multiplier
has to be applied as per the age of the deceased or the claimants
whichever is lower because if the claimants are very old the
dependency would soon come to an end early and likewise if
the deceased is very old he would survive for the lesser years as
compared to the claimants. In the latest decision of the
Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shyam Singh
& Ors., 2007 (11) SCC 365 the Supreme Court approved the
multiplier of 8 applied by the Tribunal by taking the average
age of the parents of the deceased, who were 55 & 56 years of
age. In the circumstances there is no manner of doubt that the
multiplier according to the age of the claimants or the deceased
whichever is lower has to be selected for the purpose of
calculation of dependency.
7. Turning to the facts of the instant case the mother's age is
claimed to be 50 years on the basis of the Ration Card Ex. PW-
5/15 issued in the year 1991. Generally, age in a Ration Card is
mentioned only by approximation and the same cannot be
presumed to be the accurate age. It may be noticed that in the
Ration Card, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 10 years,
which would imply that the age of the deceased on the date of
the accident was just 19 years, which was not correct. In fact,
his age was 25 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the
age of Appellant No.2 can be inferred from the claim petition
filed by the Appellants in the year 2002 where her age was
mentioned as 62 years. Thus, I take the age of the deceased's
mother to be 59 years on the date of the incident.
8. For the purpose of computing the income of the deceased a
reference can be made to his Form-16 Ex. PW-5/12 wherein the
gross salary of the deceased is mentioned as ` 1,05,550/-. After
deducting the conveyance, HRA and standard deductions from
the gross salary, the income of the deceased comes out to be `
47,673/-, which is not taxable. The Tribunal, however, ought
not to have deducted the conveyance and HRA as these were
part of the deceased's income. That being so, the net income of
the deceased shall be considered as ` 1,05,550/-; adding 50%
towards future prospects and deducting half towards his
personal expenses, multiplicand comes to ` 79,162/-. Now,
applying the multiplier of 9 (according to the age of the mother)
to the said amount, the loss of dependency comes to `
7,12,458/- After adding conventional sum of ` 25,000/- towards
love and affection, ` 10,000/- towards funeral expenses and `
10,000/- towards loss of estate. In addition, ` 10,000/- towards
treatment (before the deceased's death). The total
compensation comes to ` 7,57,458/-. Appellants would be
entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced
compensation of ` 1,43,183/- from the date of filing of the
petition till realization of the amount, which the Respondent
No.1 (Sunil Sharma) and Respondent No.2 (Insurance
Company) are liable to pay jointly and severally. Respondent
Insurance Co. is directed to make the payment of enhanced
compensation within six weeks from the date of this order.
30% of the enhanced compensation shall be released to the
Appellants immediately in equal shares. Rest of the amount
shall be held in Fixed Deposit for a period of three years.
9. The appeal is allowed in above terms. No cost.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 02, 2011
hs
