Delhi High Court
Parvati vs Uoi & Ors. on 2 December, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 29th November, 2011
Pronounced on: 2nd December, 2011
+ FAO 412/2000
PARVATI ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Suman N. Rawat, Adv.
Versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate for
Respondent No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The appellant impugns the award dated 31.08.2000 passed by
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Tribunal) whereby a
compensation of ` 57,600/- was granted for the death of
deceased Pakium, who was aged about 18 years at the time of
the accident, which occurred on 19.12.1985. The Appellant's
case before the Tribunal was that the deceased was rendering
domestic services to a person, who provided a servant quarter
(in lieu of the services) and the rental value of the quarter was `
800/- per month. By the impugned award the Tribunal believed
the income of the deceased to be ` 800/- per month, deducted
1/3rd towards her personal expenses and on applying the
multiplier of '9' arrived at the dependency as ` 57,600/-. The
Tribunal awarded a conventional sum of ` 2,000/- towards
funeral expenses making the total awarded compensation as `
59,600/-.
2. The following contentions were raised on behalf of Appellant: -
(i) The income of ` 800/- taken by the Tribunal was too low
and no deduction towards personal expenses ought to
have been made.
(ii) The future prospects were not considered by the Tribunal.
(iii) The appropriate multiplier considering the Appellant's
age as 41 years was '14' instead of '9'.
3. No evidence was led before the Tribunal as to the value of the
servant quarter except the statement of Appellant before the
Tribunal. The minimum wages on the date of accident were `
414/- per month. Even if 50% increase was to be given on
account of inflation, the dependency was to be computed as `
621/-, which was much less than the amount of ` 800/-.
Moreover, the compensation in respect of death of a person
would not be admissible to the Appellant/ legal representative
where he or she is not financially dependant upon the deceased.
4. In Keith Rowe v. Prashant Sagar & Ors., MAC APP.
No.601/2007 decided on 15.01.2001 this Court relying on the
judgment of Karnataka High Court in A. Manavalagan v. A.
Krishnamurthy & Ors., 2005 ACJ 1992 held that when in a
family of two members staying together, both were earning and
had no dependents, the compensation is to be granted only
under the head of loss of estate, which is to be taken as 1/3rd of
the deceased's income. It was held that no loss of dependency
would arise in such a case.
5. Applying the said principle to the present case, the deceased's
mother was in government service and was not financially
dependent on the deceased. Thus, the Appellant would be
entitled to the compensation only to the extent of 1/3rd of the
deceased's income, which comes to ` 266/- (800/ 3) applying
multiplier of '14' as per the Appellant's age the compensation
works out as ` 44,688/-. If I add a sum of ` 10,000/- towards
loss of love and affection (considering that the accident took
place in the year 1985 and the Appellant would be entitled to
interest) and a sum of ` 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the
total compensation comes to ` 56,688/-, which is less than the
compensation of ` 57,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, it
cannot be said that the compensation awarded was not just and
reasonable.
6. The appeal is devoid of any merit. The same is accordingly
dismissed. No costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 02, 2011
hs
