Hira Devi (Deceased) Through Lrs vs Narayan Dutt & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 1055 Del

                                      UNREPORTED
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                     MAC. APP. 451/2009


HIRA DEVI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRs ..... Appellants
                  Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate

             versus

NARAYAN DUTT & ORS.                             ..... Respondents
                 Through:             Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
                                      for Mr. Rajiv Narain, Advocate
                                      for the respondent No.3

%                          Date of Decision :   February 22, 2011

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
   to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

                           J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi dated 04.05.2009 in Suit

No.419/2008, whereby a sum of ` 1,16,000/- with interest @ 7.5%

per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till its realization

was awarded to the appellant by the learned Tribunal against the

claimed amount of ` 20,00,000/-.

2. The facts relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that

on 19.09.2007 at 10.30 a.m., Shri Kake (hereinafter referred to as "the

deceased") along with his brother Shri Khairati Lal was crossing the

road outside Gate Mall Godown Railway Station, Subzi Mandi, when

a truck bearing registration No.HR-38-D-6633 came from the side of

Mall Godown Gate at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner,

driven by its driver Shri Narayan Dutt, the respondent No.1 and hit

the deceased, as a result of which the deceased fell down and was

crushed under the wheels of the said truck. A criminal case was

registered against driver of the truck, Shri Narayan Dutt, the

respondent No.1 under Sections 279/304A IPC bearing FIR

No.418/2007 with Police Station Subzi Mandi, Delhi.

3. There is no dispute as to the fact that the deceased was a

bachelor aged 27 years and was unmarried at the time of the accident.

The appellant, who was his mother, was his sole surviving legal heir

and on the date of the accident was 64 years of age as per the ration

card Ex. PW-2/1. There is also no dispute as to the fact that the

deceased was a motor mechanic engaged in the job of denting and

painting. Although PW-2 Smt. Hira Devi, the mother of the

deceased, testified that the income of the deceased was ` 6,000/- per

month, there being no evidence on record with regard to the income

of the deceased, the learned Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the

deceased was an unskilled workman and taking the aid of the

Minimum Wage Index, assessed the income of the deceased on the

date of the accident to be in the sum of ` 3,516/- per month. The

deceased, being a bachelor, the Tribunal then proceeded to deduct one

half of the income of the deceased towards his own living expenses,

and thereby assessed the loss of dependency of the appellant to be

` 1,758/- per month, i.e., ` 21,096/- per annum. Since the appellant

Hira Devi was 64 years of age on the date of the accident while the

deceased was 27 years of age, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 5

to the annual income of the deceased on the basis that it would be the

age of the appellant which would determine the multiplier in the

instant case, and thus computed the total loss of dependency of the

appellant to be ` 21,096/- x 5 = ` 1,05,480/-, which it rounded off to

` 1,06,000/-. The learned Tribunal then proceeded to award a sum of

` 5,000 /- to the appellant on account of funeral expenses of the

deceased and a further sum of ` 5,000/- on account of loss of estate;

and after adding these non-pecuniary losses awarded a total

compensation of ` 1,16,000/- to the appellant, including the amount

of the interim award of ` 50,000 /-, with interest at the rate of 7.5%

per annum from the date of the filing of the petition, i.e., 03.10.2007

till the date of realization.

4. Mr. O.P. Mannie, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks to

assail the award of the Tribunal principally on three grounds. The

first ground relates to the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal, which,

according to the counsel, should have been the multiplier of 7 instead

of the multiplier of 5, keeping in view the fact that on the date of the

accident the age of the appellant/claimant was 64 years. The second

ground sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is

that the Tribunal, while taking the minimum wages of an unskilled

workman on the date of the accident to be the income of the deceased,

grossly erred in not taking into account the increase in minimum

wages. Thirdly, the learned counsel urged that the Tribunal while

awarding non-pecuniary compensation had failed to award anything

towards the loss of love and affection occasioned to the appellant by

the death of her young son.

5. Adverting first to the aspect of increase in minimum wages,

there is no denying the fact that in a catena of judgments rendered by

this Court, judicial notice has been taken of the increase in minimum

wages to meet the increase in price index and the inflation rate.

Different Benches of this Court have held that while computing the

income of the deceased for the purpose of ascertaining the loss of

dependency of his legal representatives, the increase in minimum

wages cannot be ignored. In all these decisions, the Court has taken

the view that the minimum wages get doubled over the period of 10

years, and held that taking into account the increase in minimum

wages is not akin to taking into account the future prospects of the

deceased. It may be noted that in the following amongst other

decisions this Court has taken a view that it is legitimate for the Court

while computing the income of the deceased to take into account the

fact that the minimum wages get doubled over a period of 10 years

and this aspect has no nexus to the future progression of the

deceased/victim in his chosen job or vocation:

1. Kanwar Devi vs. Bansal Roadways, 2008 ACJ 2182;

2. National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Renu Devi, III (2008) ACC 134;

3. UPSRTC vs. Munni Devi, IV (2009) ACC 879;

4. Shanti Devi & Ors. vs. Ghasiya Khachhap & Ors., ILR (2010) Delhi 412;

5. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bimla & Ors., MAC APP. No. 625/2009 decided on 28th April, 2010; and

6. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sujata & Ors., MAC APP. No. 19/2011 decided on 21st January, 2011.

6. It may also be mentioned that it is the governmental policy to

increase the rate of minimum wages after the passage of every few

years to meet the escalation in the cost of living, and there does not,

therefore, appear to be any justifiable reason as to why the aforesaid

policy should be given a complete go-by by the Courts, while

calculating the income of the deceased for the purpose of computing

the loss of dependency of his legal representatives. This is all the

more so as the Motor Vehicles Act is designed to be a beneficial piece

of legislation, and is meant to enure to the benefit of the destitute and

hapless in cases where more often than not the bread-winner of the

family dies unexpectedly in a motor vehicular accident or a person is

crippled for the duration of his entire life.

7. Thus, taking into account the eventual increase in minimum

wages and by adding 50% thereto, the income of the deceased for the

purpose of computation of the loss of dependency of the appellant

works out to be ` 5,274/- per month, i.e., ` 3,516/- per month plus

` 1,758/- per month, being 50% of ` 3,516/- = ` 5,274/-. The

deceased, being a bachelor, one-half of this income is required to be

deducted towards his personal living expenses, and thus the loss of

dependency of the appellant works out to ` 2,637/- per month, i.e., `

31,644/- per annum. In accordance with settled principles, this

multiplicand must be augmented by applying an appropriate

multiplier in accordance with the age of the appellant. With a view to

guide the Tribunals as well as the Courts in the choice of multiplier,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down a table of multipliers

according to the age group of the deceased in paragraph 21 of its

judgment rendered in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which, though

reproduced by the learned Tribunal in its judgment, was not adhered

to by the Tribunal while choosing the multiplier in the instant case. A

bare glance at this table shows that for the age group of persons

between 61 to 65 years of age, the multiplier applicable should be the

multiplier of 7. Adopting this multiplier, the total loss of dependency

of the appellant works out to ` 31,644/- per annum x 7 = ` 2,21,508/-

in all. Adding the non-pecuniary damages of ` 10,000/- to this figure

towards the funeral expenses of the deceased and loss of estate and a

further sum of ` 5,000/- towards loss of love and affection, the total

compensation payable to the appellant works out to ` 2,36,508/-,

including the sum of ` 50,000/- awarded to the appellant as interim

compensation. Thus, the appellants are held entitled to an enhanced

amount of ` 2,36,508/-, which is rounded off to ` 2,36,510/-

(inclusive of the interim award) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per

annum from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of

realization.

The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) February 22, 2011 km