Delhi High Court
Sudesh Chopra vs Surender Pal Singh & Ors. on 15 December, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~19 & 18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 15th December, 2011
+ MAC APP. 79/2010
SUDESH CHOPRA ..... Appellant
Through Ms. Kamlakshi Singh,
Advocate
versus
SURENDER PAL SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. S.M. Puri, Advocate for
Respondent No.1.
Ms. Kimi Brara, Advocate for
Respondent No.2
+ MAC.APP. 205/2010
SURENDER PAL SINGH ..... Appellant
Through Mr. S.M. Puri, Advocate
versus
SUDESH CHOPRA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Kamlakshi Singh,
Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Ms. Kimi Brara, Advocate for
Respondent No.2 and proxy
counsel on behalf of
Respondents No.3 & 4.
MAC APP 79/2010 & MAC APP 205/2010 Page 1 of 6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. These are two cross-Appeals i.e. MAC APP No.79/2010
preferred by Sudesh Chopra widow of the deceased Dharambir
Chopra is limited to the extent that the Appellant was entitled to
the interest on the amount of compensation granted to her. The
interest is claimed @ 15% per annum.
2. In the cross-Appeal MAC APP No.205/2010, the Appellant
Surender Pal Singh being the owner of the Truck No.DEL-3768
says that the deceased was aged 55 years 04 months and 17
days. Thus, he was due to retire just after 02 years and 07
months (the age of superannuation at the relevant time was 58
years) and thus, he should have been awarded the salary which
he would have got only upto the period of his retirement.
3. The Tribunal while computing the loss of dependency, took the
deceased's income to be Rs.7135/- per month as per his salary
certificate, deducted 50% towards the deceased personal living
expenditure and applied the multiplier according to the
deceased's age. While applying the multiplier method, the age
of retirement of a person is normally not taken into account.
There may be a young employee working in a private sector or
government sector having 30-35 years of service. He cannot be
given the multiplier of the residue years in service. In the case
of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma
Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176, it was held as under:
"The multiplier method is logically sound and
legally well-established method of ensuring a „just‟
compensation which will make for uniformity and
certainty of the awards. A departure from this
method can only be justified in rare and
extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional
cases. There are some cases which have proceeded
to determine the compensation on the basis of
aggregating the entire future earnings for over the
period the life expectancy was lost, deducted a
percentage therefrom towards uncertainties of
future life and award the resulting sum as
compensation. This is clearly unscientific. For
instance, if the deceased was, say 25 years of age at
the time of death and the life expectancy is 70 years,
this method would multiply the loss of dependency
for 45 years- virtually adopting a multiplier of 45-
and even if one-third or one-fourth is deducted
therefrom towards the uncertainties of future life
and for immediate lump sum payment, the effective
multiplier would be between 30 and 34. This is
wholly impermissible. We are, aware that some
decisions of the High Courts and of the Supreme
Court as well have arrived at compensation on
some such basis. These decisions cannot be said to
have laid down a settled principle. They are merely
instances of particular awards in individual cases.
So the proper method of computation is the
multiplier-method. Any departure, except in
exceptional and extraordinary cases, would
introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of
uniformity and an element of unpredictability for
the assessment of compensation."
4. It cannot be assumed that a government employee would cease
to work on his superannuation. Many a government employees
get gainful employment in the private sector at much higher
salary than what was being received by them with the
government. Some may even get re-employment in the
government sector. These are however, uncertainties and,
therefore, multiplier method which has been consistently held to
be logically sound is well-established for ensuring just
compensation.
5. In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 the Supreme Court went into
detail as to the selection of multiplier. As per Sarla Verma
(supra), the proper multiplier when the deceased was more than
55 years and 07 months would be "9". It was rightly selected
by the Tribunal. So, no fault can be found with the award of
the compensation.
6. The Tribunal denied interest to the claimants from the date of
filing of the Petition till the date of the award on the ground that
the claimant was responsible for the delay in disposal of the
petition. The Trial Court held as under:
"Petitioner did not observe diligence in taking
steps for effecting service on the respondents
initially. It is also noted that, petition was
dismissed in default on 16.5.05. An application
of restoration was moved on 22.10.05 and it was
restored on 28.01.06. On 19.9.07 it was observed
by Ld. Predecessor that, notice of the application
for the restoration of the petition was issued to
R1 only, through as per amended petition there
was four respondents, thereafter order was
passed to issue notice to all the respondents.
Subsequently also, petitioner was not taking steps
and on 30.05.08 counsel for petitioner stated
that, petitioner was not contacting him, in the
totality of facts and circumstances the petitioner,
is not entitled to any interest as delay in disposal
of the case is attributable to her only.
7. I have perused the trial court record. It is true that the Appellant
contributed to the delay in disposal of the claim petition. At the
same time, the Appellant was not solely responsible for the
delay. Apart from normal time taken in disposal, there was
some delay attributable to the Respondent. In the
circumstances, the Appellant would be entitled to interest on the
award amount @ 7.5% per annum for a period of three years
only till the disposal of this Appeal and thereafter till the time
the amount of interest is deposited. The Respondent Surender
Pal Singh, owner of the offending vehicle (the vehicle was not
insured) is directed to deposit the amount within six weeks.
8. In view of the above discussion, Appeal MAC APP
No.205/2010 is hereby dismissed.
9. Appeal MAC APP No.79/2010 is allowed in above terms. No
costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 15, 2011
pst
