Smt. Siya Wati & Ors. vs Vinod Kumar & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 2672 Del

                                      UNREPORTED
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 FAO 277/2000


SMT. SIYA WATI & ORS.                           ..... Appellants
                   Through:          Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate

                  versus


VINOD KUMAR & ORS.                                ..... Respondents
                 Through:            None


%                          Date of Decision : May 18, 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. By way of this appeal, the appellants seek enhancement of the

compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 22nd March, 2000 on

account of the death of Shri Chand Singh in a road accident.

2. The sole submission of Mr. Navneet Goyal, the learned counsel

for the appellants, is that a very meagre amount of compensation was

awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal by adopting a wrong method

of calculating the loss of dependency of the appellants, who are the

widow of the deceased, his six children and his father. According to

him, after calculating the monthly earnings of the deceased, who was

a teacher in Government High School in Jharsa, Gurgaon, to be in the

sum of ` 6,600/- per month (after deduction of tax and after taking

into account his anticipated future earnings), the Claims Tribunal

erred in deducting 1/3rd of the aforesaid amount for the personal

expenses of the deceased himself. It is contended by the learned

counsel for the appellants that the deduction in the instant case,

keeping in view the fact that the deceased had 8 dependents, ought

not to have been more than 1/5th of the total earnings of the deceased

as it is inconceivable that the deceased was spending 1/3rd of his

income on his own upkeep when he had 8 dependent family

members. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellants that after calculating the annual loss of dependency of the

appellants, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have applied the

multiplier of 15 instead of the multiplier of 12 keeping in view the

fact that the deceased fell in the age group of victims between 40 and

45 years of age. Finally, the learned counsel contended that the

Claims Tribunal apart from awarding pecuniary compensation to the

appellants ought to have awarded non-pecuniary damages to the

appellants towards the loss of consortium, the loss of love and

affection of the deceased, the loss of the estate of the deceased and

the funeral expenses of the deceased.

3. At this juncture, it may be mentioned that after admission of

the appeal on July 25, 2000, notice of the appeal was duly served, but

despite service of notice, the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company

did not care to contest the case and none appeared on behalf of the

Insurance Company to advance arguments in rebuttal.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and

perusing the records, I am of the considered opinion that the award

amount deserves to be enhanced in the instant case in consonance

with the law laid down by the Supreme Court time and again. Mr.

Goyal's contention that the deduction made from the earnings of the

deceased towards the personal expenses and maintenance of the

deceased ought not to have been more than 1/5th of his total earnings

appears to be justified as also his contention that the multiplier should

have been the multiplier of 15, instead of the multiplier of 12. I also

find his prayer that the appellants are entitled to the award of non-

pecuniary damages under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988, to be justified.

5. On a re-calculation of the compensation, on the assumption that

the income of the deceased was ` 6,600/- per month as determined by

the Claims Tribunal, the total loss of dependency of the appellants

works out to ` 9,50,400/-, that is, ` 6,600/- x 4/5 x 12 x 15. The

appellants are accordingly held entitled to receive the aforesaid

amount towards the loss of dependency. Apart from this, the

appellants are held entitled to receive a sum of ` 10,000/- towards the

loss of consortium, ` 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, `

10,000/- towards the loss of estate of the deceased and ` 5,000/-

towards the funeral expenses of the deceased. Interest on the

aforesaid amount as awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 12% per

annum shall also be payable from the date of the filing of the petition

till its realisation. The awarded amount shall be apportioned between

the appellants in the ratio fixed by the Claims Tribunal. The entire

shares of the appellants No.2 to 7 shall be kept in Fixed Deposits till

they attain the age of majority, (in case the said respondents are

minors) against which no loan or advance shall be sanctioned without

the prior permission of the Claims Tribunal.

The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms and stands

disposed of.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) May 18, 2011 km