Delhi High Court
Kartari Devi & Anr. vs Sabu & Anr. on 8 December, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 2nd December, 2011
Pronounced on: 08th December, 2011
+ MAC APP. 290/2011
KARTARI DEVI & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Adv.
Versus
SABU & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Saqib, Adv. for R-2.
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 Pawan Kumar, who was aged about 20 years at the
time of accident, which took place on 23.01.1998. The Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) by the impugned
award granted a compensation of ` 2,51,800/-.
2. Initially the claim petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed.
The said order was set-aside in MAC. APP. No.162/2005 by an
order dated 01.12.2009. In para 10 of the order dated
01.12.2009, it was held as under: -
"Noting that the accident relates to the year 1998
and the factum of the accident and death of Pawan
Kumar in the accident is not disputed and the
Tribunal has already given the finding with respect
to the rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle, the learned Tribunal is directed to
complete the inquiry within two months."
3. Thus the Tribunal was directed to make an inquiry as to the
quantum of compensation. The contentions raised on behalf of
Appellants are as under: -
(i) The deceased was running an electrical shop and earning
` 3,000/- per month. He was a non-matriculate yet the
minimum wages of an unskilled worker were taken into
consideration by the Tribunal instead of a non-
matriculate.
(ii) The compensation of ` 2,51,800/- is too low and cannot
be said to be just compensation as even in the case of a
minor the compensation of ` 3,75,000/- is being awarded
by the superior courts. A reliance is placed on R. K.
Malik & Anr. v. Kiran Pal & Ors., 2009 ACJ 1924 and in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Farzana & Ors., 2009
ACJ 2763.
CONTENTION NO.(i)
4. In the claim petition filed before the Tribunal it was averred that
the deceased was running an electrical shop in Narela and was
earning ` 3,000/- per month. In the absence of any evidence as
to the factum of running of the shop or earning ` 3,000/- per
month, the Tribunal took a minimum wages of an unskilled
worker as ` 1,784/- added 50% on the basis of Kanwar Devi v.
Bansal Roadways, 2008 SCJ 2182; National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Renu Devi, III (2008) AC 134 and UPSRTC v.
Munni Devi, MAC. APP. No.310/2007, and deducted 50%
towards personal expenses and computed the loss of
dependency as ` 2,24,784/-. The School Leaving Certificate as
Ex. PB of the deceased was proved during the inquiry before
the Tribunal, which clearly established that the deceased left the
school in the year 1996 when he was studying in 10 th standard.
The minimum wages of a non-matriculate on the date of
accident were ` 1,977/-, whereas the same were ` 1,784/- of an
unskilled worker. In the circumstances, the Tribunal ought to
have taken into account the minimum wages of a non-
matriculate instead of an unskilled worker.
CONTENTION No.(ii)
5. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that this
Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Farzana & Ors., 2009
ACJ 2763 while relying on R. K. Malik & Anr. v. Kiran Pal &
Ors., 2009 ACJ 1924 and Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 2001
8 SCC 197, awarded a compensation of ` 2,51,000/- towards
loss of dependency as taking a notional income at ` 15,000/- per
annum, ` 75,000/- towards future prospects and ` 75,000/-
towards loss of love and affection. It is urged that thus the
compensation in case of death of an adult cannot be less than
the compensation awarded in respect of death of a minor. In R.
K. Malik (supra) a tragedy occurred when a private Bus carrying
school children fell into the river Yamuna on account of rash
and negligent driving of the Bus driver. Without going into the
merits as to the educational qualification and the performance of
each of the child a compensation of ` 2,25,000/- was awarded
on the notional income of ` 15,000/-. Grant of compensation
depends on so many factors i.e. the deceased's income, the age
of the deceased, the age of the claimants, etc. etc. There may be
cases where there may not at all be the loss of financial
dependency and compensation may be awarded only towards
loss of estate (A. Manavalagan Vs. A. Krishnamurthy and Ors.,
I (2005) ACC 304). Thus, it cannot be laid down as a general
proposition that compensation of at least ` 3,75,000/- is to be
awarded in each and every case irrespective of its facts and
circumstances. This contention does not hold much water.
COMPUTATION
6. The Appellants are the deceased's parents. Appellant No.1 (the
deceased's mother) was aged 43 years at the time of the
accident and in the absence of any evidence with regard to the
age of Appellant No.1, the dependency was calculated at the
said age by applying a multiplier of '14'. The compensation on
the wages of non matriculate, thus, works out as ` 1977 + 50%
= 2,965 / 2 = 1,482 x 12 x 14 = 2,49,102/-.
7. The compensation awarded towards loss of love and affection
needs enhancement to ` 25,000/-. The revised compensation
can be computed as under: -
Compensation granted by the Tribunal:
1. Loss of dependency ` 2,24,784/-
2. Funeral & miscellaneous expenses ` 7,000/-
3. Loss of estate ` 10,000/-
4. Loss of love and affection ` 10,000/-
___________
Total ` 2,51,784/-
___________
(Total compensation rounded off to ` 2,51,800/-)
Compensation enhanced:
1. Loss of dependency ` 2,49,102/-
2. Funeral & miscellaneous expenses ` 7,000/-
3. Loss of estate ` 10,000/-
4. Loss of love and affection ` 25,000/-
___________
Total ` 2,91,102/-
___________
(Total compensation rounded off to ` 2,91,100/-)
8. Enhanced compensation of ` 39,300/- shall be deposited by
Respondent No.2 (Union of India) with the Registrar General of
this Court within six weeks along with interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of
payment. Out of the said compensation a sum of ` 10,000/-
with proportionate interest shall be paid to Appellant No.2.
Rest of the amount shall be payable to Appellant No.1. The
enhanced amount shall be held in the form of FDR for a period
of 2 years.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 08, 2011
hs
