Smt. Shakuntala & Ors vs Sh. Naresh Kumar & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 2631 Del

                                      UNREPORTED
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      MAC. APP. No. 288/2011

SMT. SHAKUNTALA & ORS                         ..... Appellants
                  Through:         Mr. O.P.Mannie, Advocate.
             Versus

SH. NARESH KUMAR & ORS.                        ..... Respondents
                 Through:          Mr. Sameer Nandwani,
                                   Advocate for Respondent No.3.

%                         Date of Decision : May 16, 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?
                          O R D E R (ORAL)

: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for

hearing at the admission stage.

2. By way of this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the

judgment and award dated 26th November, 2010 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal.

3. The essential facts are that on 26th December, 2007 one Ram

Dhari was travelling in a TSR No. HR-69-4436, which was hit by a

truck bearing No. HR-69B-4308 at GT Road near Yamuna Filling

Station, Industrial Area More. Ram Dhari (hereinafter referred to as

"the deceased") succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the

said accident. On the allegation that the truck was being driven rashly

and negligently by its driver, a claim petition was filed by the widow

and five children of the deceased claiming compensation for the

untimely demise of the deceased in the aforesaid road accident. In the

said claim petition, the age of the deceased was stated to be 39 years

at the time of his accidental death.

4. The learned Claims Tribunal, after noting that two of the

daughters of the deceased, namely, appellants No. 2 and 3 were

married and the son of the deceased, namely, appellant No.4 was in a

private job, held that only the three remaining family members were

dependent upon the income of the deceased, and thus deducted one-

third towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased from

his income, which the Claims Tribunal had assessed to be in the sum

of Rs.12,500/- per month after an addition of 50% towards future

prospects to the actual salary of the deceased. Thus, the Claims

Tribunal arrived at a figure of Rs.8,333/- per month as the loss of

dependency of the appellants, and after multiplying the said figure by

12 to arrive at the annual loss of dependency, applied the multiplier of

15 to arrive at the figure of Rs.15 lacs towards the compensation

payable to the appellants on account of the dependency of the

appellants on the deceased. After adding non-pecuniary damages, the

Claims Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to receive a

sum of Rs.15,85,000/- in all, including the amount of the interim

award, with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of

the petition till its realisation.

5. Although a number of grounds were raised in the

Memorandum of Appeal, at the time of hearing of the appeal the sole

ground sought to be pressed by Mr. O.P. Mannie, the learned counsel

for the appellants is with regard to the deduction of 1/3 rd of the

income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and

maintenance. Mr. Mannie contended that with such a large family to

support, the deceased could not have been spending more than 1/4th of

his income upon his own upkeep.

6. I am inclined to agree with the aforesaid contention of Mr.

Mannie for the reason that though the deceased left behind him his

widow and two unmarried daughters who were wholly dependent

upon him, the deceased also left behind him two married daughters

and a son, who though may not have been dependent on him stricto

senso, nevertheless formed part of his family. The married daughters

of the deceased have been awarded only a sum of Rs.10,000/- each

while the son of the deceased has been awarded Rs.15,000/- only by

the Claims Tribunal.

7. It is well known that in Indian society married daughters are

also the beneficiaries of various gifts and cash amounts from the

father from time to time. The appellant No.4, who was the son of the

deceased, was also unmarried and in due course of time the father

would have expended some amount of money on his marriage and

would have supported him in times of need. Accordingly, in my view,

the deduction of one-fourth of the income of the deceased ought to

have been made by the Claims Tribunal while calculating the loss of

dependency of the appellants. Thus calculated, the appellants must be

held entitled to receive a sum of Rs.12,500 X 3/4 X 12 X 15 which

comes to Rs.16,87,500/-. Adding the sum of Rs.85,000/- towards the

non-pecuniary damages awarded by the Tribunal, the total amount of

compensation awardable to the appellants comes to Rs.17,72,500.

The award amount is accordingly enhanced from Rs.15,85,000/- to

Rs.17,72,500/-. Interest as awarded by the Tribunal shall also be

payable on the enhanced amount of award by the respondent No.3

from the date of institution of the claim petition till the date of

realisation of the award amount.

8. The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the enhanced

amount of compensation within a period of 30 days from today along

with the interest thereon with the Registrar General of this Court. This

amount shall be equally apportioned between the appellants No.1to 6.

9. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) May 16, 2011 'raj'