Smt.Kamlesh Devi & Ors. vs Sh.Kitab Singh & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3293 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment: 12.7.2011


+                  MAC APPEAL No.152/2009


SMT.KAMLESH DEVI & ORS.                          ...........Appellants

                         Through: Mr.Manish Maini, Advocate.

                   Versus

SH.KITAB SINGH & ORS.             ..........Respondents
                   Through: None.



CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?               Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

                                                             Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. The Award impugned is the Award dated 5.4.2008 vide

which compensation in the sum of Rs.8,76,184/- along with

interest at 7.5% per annum had been granted in favour of the

claimants.

2. Prakash Chand aged 55 years had suffered death in a road

accident which had taken place on 27.8.2005. The deceased was

riding his bicycle; a truck coming from Wazirabad hit him in a

rash and negligent manner; deceased died at the spot.

3. The present petition has been filed by the claimants seeking

an enhancement of compensation. The controversy is narrow. It

has been urged that the victim was 55 years of age and he having

six dependants, deduction should have been made of 1/4th and not

of 1/3rd. The salary certificate of the deceased had been proved as

Ex.PW-2/A. Deceased was working as a lascer in the Air Force

Station. After giving him the benefit of future prospects his loss

of income had been computed to Rs.13065/-; multiplier of 11 was

applied; split multiplier was applied keeping in view the fact that

the petitioner had to retire at the age of 60; under the first

category the actual salary i.e. between the age of 55 to 60 had

been taken into account and in the second category since at the

age of 60 years the deceased would have retired; his pension was

considered; under this circumstance the split multiplier had been

applied. This was a reasoned reasoning and calls for no

interference. In the the judgment of K.R. Madhusushan & Ors. Vs.

The Administrative Officer & Anr. 2011(2) Scale 511, the split

multiplier introduced by the High Court had been set aside by the

Apex Court as the High Court had applied the method of the split

multiplier without disclosing any reason; the Tribunal (as noted

supra) had given a reasoned finding for adopting the split

multiplier. This finding does not call for any interference.

4. Record shows that the deceased had four children who were

already married and three minor dependants; his widow was

getting a family pension. The deduction of 1/3rd made on this

count in view of the judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (2009) 67

SCC 121 also suffers from no infirmity; the impugned Award calls

for no interference. Dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

JULY 12, 2011 nandan