B.L. Singhal And Anr. vs Inderjit Singh And Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3520 Del

                                      UNREPORTED
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                 FAO 572/2001


B.L. SINGHAL AND ANR.                          ..... Appellants
                           Through:   Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate
                                      with Ms. Gurpreet Kaur,
                                      Advocate.

                  versus

INDERJIT SINGH AND ORS.                         ..... Respondents
                           Through:   None


%                          Date of Decision : July 25, 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?

                           JUDGMENT

: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the

judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated

17.08.2001 passed in Suit No. 22/88 seeking enhancement of the

awarded amount.

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

on 28.08.1987 at about 3.15 p.m., one Manish Singhal (hereinafter

referred to as "the deceased") was going towards the High Court from

Shakarpur on his two-wheeler scooter No. DDU 3690. When he

reached Ring Road, near Railway Line, bus No.URP 8932, being

driven rashly and negligently by the respondent No.1 hit the scooter

of the deceased from the rear left side, as a result whereof the

deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries to which he

succumbed on 02.09.1987. A claim petition was filed by the

appellants, who are the parents of the deceased, under Sections 92A

and 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming compensation in

the sum of ` 10,96,000/- for the untimely demise of their son.

3. The Claims Tribunal, after recording a finding that the

deceased-Manish Singhal had died due to the accident dated

28.08.1987 as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the

offending bus by the respondent No. 1, held the respondents No.1 and

3 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellants in

the sum of ` 1,90,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per

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

award amount. The Tribunal, for the purpose of quantifying the

aforesaid compensation payable to the appellants, came to the finding

that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the deceased must

have started earning at least ` 3,000/- per month from the year 1989

or 1990, that is, after completing his B. Tech in 1988 and thus,

proceeded to calculate the compensation on the basis of aforesaid

monthly salary of the deceased. The Tribunal further observed,

relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra, (1996)

4 SCC 362, that had the son of the appellants not died in the accident,

he would eventually have got married and after his marriage, there

would have been four members in the family of the deceased.

Considering each adult family member as two units as per the

aforesaid decision of Supreme Court, the Tribunal held that there

would be eight units in the family of the deceased and accordingly,

worked out the share per unit as ` 375/- per month (` 3000/- ÷ 8= `

375/-). The appellants, constituting four units, their share was

worked out to be in the sum of ` 1,500/- per month (`375 x 4 = `

1,500/-). The said amount of ` 1,500/- per month was taken by the

Tribunal to be the monthly loss of dependency of the appellants and

the annual loss of dependency of the appellants was computed to be `

18,000/-. To augment this multiplicand, the Tribunal applied the

multiplier of 10 and the total loss of dependency of the appellants was

calculated to be in the sum of ` 1,80,000/-. To this amount, the

Tribunal added a sum of ` 10,000/- by way of loss of the expectation

of life. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a sum of ` 1,90,000/- to the

appellants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the

date of the filing of the petition, that is, 23.02.1988 till the date of

realization.

4. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount of compensation,

the appellants have preferred the present appeal against the aforesaid

judgment and award of the Tribunal, seeking enhancement of the

award amount on following grounds:

(a) The learned Tribunal erred in considering the income of the

deceased as only ` 3,000/- per month without considering the

future prospects of increase in the income of the deceased.

(b) The multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal was on the

lower side.

(c) The non-pecuniary damages awarded by the learned Tribunal

were grossly inadequate.

5. Mr. Navneet Goyal, the learned counsel for the appellants

contended that the deceased was a young boy of 21 years of age and

was a student of Final Year of Mechanical Engineering in Banaras

Hindu University. He had an excellent academic record and bright

future prospects. After the completion of his education, the deceased

would have started drawing a salary of ` 3,000/- per month and after

two years, he would have drawn ` 5,000/- per month and

subsequently after five years, he would have started earning `

10,000/- per month. Mr. Goyal further submitted that the appellants

would have received from the deceased at least ` 2,000/- per month

once the deceased started earning and would have received pecuniary

benefit of ` 4,000/- per month two years therefrom.

6. Reference was made by the learned counsel to the testimony of

PW5 Shri B.L. Singhal, the father of the deceased, wherein he stated

that the deceased, who was his eldest son, was excellent in his studies

and used to secure more than 80% marks. He stated that U.G.C. had

offered him a scholarship of ` 200/- per month in the year 1985. He

further stated that the deceased was planning to go to USA for

seeking employment, for which he had also taken the GRE

Examination. He proved on record the original educational

certificates and other certificates of the deceased (collectively marked

as Ex. PW-5/1 to PW-5/31) including Ex.PW5/18 which is the

certificate showing that the deceased passed his Delhi Secondary

School Examination in the year 1981, Ex.PW5/17, which is the

marksheet of the deceased for the Senior School Certificate

Examination of the year 1983, Ex.PW5/12 and 13, which are the

marksheets of the deceased for fifth and sixth semester examinations

respectively of Mechanical Engineering pertaining to the academic

year 1986-87, and the passport of the deceased Ex.PW5/23.

7. This Court did not have the advantage of hearing the

respondents, who remained unrepresented. However, the records of

the learned Tribunal were requisitioned and made available to enable

this Court to ascertain and evaluate the income of the deceased.

8. It is apparent from the records that the deceased was a student

of final year of Mechanical Engineering, that he was a consistent

academic performer and was also active in extra-curricular activities.

The academic record of the deceased in fact reflects that he would

have most certainly risen in his professional life too. Thus, in my

view, it is just and proper that the future prospects of the deceased be

given due consideration while computing the compensation payable

to the appellants on account of their loss of dependency. The

deceased was barely 21 years of age and with the passage of time his

salary was bound to increase by at least 50% more than his salary at

the beginning of his career. I am fortified in coming to this

conclusion from the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in

the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121.

9. The compensation awarded to the appellants, thus, needs to be

re-computed. As far as the monthly salary of the deceased is

concerned, the same may be taken at ` 3,000/- per month as has been

ascertained by the learned Tribunal. However, as explained

hereinabove, future prospects to the extent of 50% ought to be added

to this amount and monthly salary of the deceased, thus, comes to `

4,500/- per month (` 3,000/- + ` 1,500/-). Considering that the

deceased was a bachelor and was survived by two dependents,

namely, the appellants No.1 and 2, one-half of the salary is liable to

be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and the

resultant loss of dependency of the appellants thus comes to ` 2,250/-

per month or say ` 27,000/- per annum.

10. As regards the multiplier, it was contended by Mr. Goyal that

the mother of the deceased was of 43 years of age at the time of the

accident and in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court

in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the appropriate multiplier for the

age group of victims between 41 years and 45 years of age is the

multiplier of 14. I am inclined to accept the aforesaid contention of

Mr. Goyal. The multiplier of 10 as adopted by the Tribunal is thus

held to be on the lower side and accordingly enhanced to 14.

Augmenting the multiplicand of ` 27,000/-by the multiplier of 14, the

total loss of dependency of the appellants comes to ` 3,78,000/-. In

addition to this, the appellants are also held entitled to non pecuniary

damages in the sum of ` 10,000/- towards the loss of love and

affection (instead of the sum of ` 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal

towards the loss of expectation of life), ` 5,000/- towards the loss of

estate of the deceased and ` 5,000/- towards the funeral expenses of

the deceased, in all, a sum of ` 20,000/-. The appellants are thus held

entitled to a total compensation of ` 3,98,000/- alongwith interest at

the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount.

11. The award amount is modified accordingly. The enhanced

compensation alongwith interest thereon shall be deposited by the

respondents No.1 and 3 with the learned Tribunal within a period of

30 days from today. The Tribunal shall direct the apportionment and

deposit, etc. of the enhanced amount.

12. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

13. The records of the Claims Tribunal be sent back forthwith.

14. A copy of this order be sent to the respondents No.1 and 3 for

compliance thereof.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) July 25, 2011