Delhi High Court
Pushkar Mehra & Ors. vs Brij Mohan Kushwaha & Ors. on 14 December, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 14th December, 2011
+ MAC.APP. NO.830/2010
PUSHKAR MEHRA & ORS ..... Appellants
Through Mr. Y.R. Sharma, Advocate
versus
BRIJ MOHAN KUSHWAHA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellants seek enhancement of compensation granted in
respect of the death of Swadhin Mehra who died in an accident
which took place on 23.10.2004. The deceased was aged 54
years at the time of the accident.
2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the
deceased's income is claimed to be `1,25,000/- per annum as he
was carrying on the business of paints and hardware. The
deceased had two sons, one of them was working as an
Engineer in USA. Wife of the deceased was working in Hotel
Taj Palace and getting a salary of `11,000/- per month. In the
absence of any reliable evidence in support of the deceased's
income, the Tribunal took the minimum wages of an unskilled
worker to arrive at the deceased's income and applied the
multiplier of "11" to calculate the loss of dependency.
3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that even if
there is no evidence to prove that the deceased had an income of
`1,25,000/-, the fact that the deceased had brought up two sons
who were very well-placed would be sufficient to show that he
had substantial income. The learned counsel for the Appellant
placed reliance on Asha Gupta & Ors. V. Ramji Lal & Anr.,
1(2003) ACC 272. It is contended that even if the Appellants'
case is considered under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1/3rd income of the surviving spouse can be taken as the
deceased's income.
4. In the Assessment Year 2004-05, an income above `60,000/-
per annum was taxable. Neither it was the case of the Appellant
that the deceased was an Income Tax assessee nor any
document was placed on record to show that any income tax
was paid by the deceased. Asha Gupta & Ors. V. Ramji Lal &
Anr.(supra) is not attracted to the facts of the present case as in
Asha Gupta(supra) it was established on record that the
deceased was maintaining two cars, was paying rent @ `
1,400/- per month and fees of two sons @ `300/- per month. It
was in these circumstances, that the deceased's income was
taken as ` 55,000/-
5. 1/3rd of the income of the surviving spouse cannot be taken as
the income of the deceased for the reason that this Petition was
not filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Moreover, there is a limit of ` 40,000/- as income if any
claimant approaches the Court under Section 163-A of the Act.
6. The Tribunal rightly took the deceased's income as per the
Minimum Wages Act. Since there was no dependent on the
deceased, in fact there is no loss of dependency and the
Appellant was entitled to compensation under the head of loss
of his estate on the basis of the judgment of Karnataka High
Court in A. Manavalagan v. A. Krishnamurthy & Ors., (2005)
ACC 304 and of this Court in Keith Rowe V. Prashant Sagar &
Ors., MAC APP No.601/2007 decided on 15.01.2010.
7. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was quite benevolent in
taking 1/3rd of the deceased's income towards personal
expenses. Although, the deceased's children were well-settled
and the wife was also earning, the amount of compensation of
`1 lakh under the head of loss of love and affection was also
excessive. The compensation awarded was more than adequate.
8. The Appeal is without any merit; it is accordingly dismissed. I
refrain from imposing any cost upon the Appellant as she is the
deceased's widow.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 14, 2011
pst
