Delhi High Court
Rajbala & Ors. vs Mahesh Kumar And Ors. on 1 November, 2011
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC APP No. 214-18/2006
Reserved on: 28.09.2011
Date of Order: 01.11.2011
RAJBALA & ORS. ...... Appellant
Through: Mr.Ashok Popli, Advocate.
Versus
MAHESH KUMAR AND ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be -Yes
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
M.L. MEHTA, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 24.11.2005
of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as
„the Tribunal‟ for short). Vide the impugned award a
compensation of `14,83,520/-, which was rounded to figure of
`14,84,000/-, was granted to the appellant/ claimants on account
of death of Rajinder Singh, who died in a road accident which took
place on 2.2.05. The deceased was employed as Head Constable
with Delhi Police. The compensation was made up of `14,33,520/-
on account of financial loss of dependency of the claimants and
`50,000/- on account of funeral expenses, pain & sufferings, loss
of love & affection, loss of consortium and loss of estate.
2. The appellants have assailed the impugned award alleging
the awarded compensation on account of financial loss of
dependency of the claimants to be on lower side. The point urged
in the present appeal is that the learned Tribunal had applied
multiplier of 11 which was on much lower side. It was submitted
that keeping in view the age of deceased, the multiplier which
was applicable was 14 and not 11. It was also submitted that the
deceased left behind as many as five dependants and that being
so, 1/4th of his income ought to have been deducted as towards
his personal and living expenditure instead of 1/3rd as has been
done by the Tribunal. To buttress these submissions reliance was
placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sarla
Verma and Others v Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [AIR
2009 SC 3104]. The fluid situation of the courts and Tribunal
applying different multipliers and making different deductions
towards personal and living expenses of the deceased has been
set at rest by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma
(supra). This was not disputed by learned counsel for the
respondent No. 3/insurance company. The relevant paragraphs of
the aforesaid judgment are reproduced here as under:
"14. Though in some cases the deduction to
be made towards personal and living
expenses is calculated on the basis of units
indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general
practice is to apply standardized
deductions. Having considered several
subsequent decisions of this Court, we are
of the view that where the deceased was
married, the deduction towards personal
and living expenses of the deceased, should
be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of
dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-
fourth (1/4th) where the number of
dependant family members is 4 to 6, and
one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of
dependant family members exceed six.
21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to
be used should be as mentioned in column
(4) of the Table above (prepared by
applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra
and Charlie), which starts with an operative
multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to
20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit
for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to
30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for
36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and
M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by
two units for every five years, that is, M-11
for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years,
M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70
years."
3. In view of the above judgment, the age of the deceased
being 45 years, the multiplier of 14 was to be applied instead of
11. Likewise, since the deceased left behind 5 dependants, 1/4th
of his income was to be deducted towards his personal and living
expenses instead of 1/3rd. That being the position of law, the
Tribunal, apparently, seems to have erred in applying the
multiplier of 11 and also in making deduction of 1/3rd of the
income of deceased towards his personal and living expenses.
Consequently, the award needs modification.
4. The income of the deceased which was arrived at by the
Tribunal as `1,95,480/- per annum has not been disputed or
challenged by the respondents. After making deduction of 1/4th
towards personal and living expenses out of this annual income of
`1,95,480/- of the deceased, net annual financial loss of the
dependants comes out to be `1,46,610/- [`1,95,480/- (-) `48,870/-
(1/4th of `1,95,480/-)]. Applying the proper multiplier of 14 to
the same, the total dependency loss of the appellants/ claimants
comes out to be `20,52,540/- (`1,95,480/- x 14).
5. In this manner of calculations, the appellant would be
entitled to enhanced compensation of `6,19,020/- [`20,52,540/-
(-) `14,33,520/-]. Consequently, the appellants are entitled to this
enhanced compensation amount of `6,19,020/-. Respondent No.
3, being the insurer of the offending vehicle, is liable to pay this
enhanced compensation amount to the appellants.
6. Appellant No. 1 is the widow of deceased and others are
sons, daughter and father of the deceased. The children of the
deceased have attained majority now. Appellant No. 3 Miss Sonia
is daughter of the deceased and is of marriageable age. Hence,
out of the enhanced amount, a sum of`2,00,000/- shall be paid to
Ms. Sonia which amount will be invested in Fixed Deposit in her
name and the FDR will be entitled to be encashed only at the time
of her marriage or in case of some emergent need or occasion.
Out of the balance enhanced compensation amount, a sum of
`2,00,000/- shall be paid to the widow of the deceased i.e. the
appellant No. 1 and `50,000/- shall be paid to appellant No. 4 Jai
Lal i.e. the father of the deceased and the balance/remaining
amount of the enhanced compensation shall be shared by
appellant No. 2 and appellant No. 4 i.e. Anil Kumar and Sunil
Kumar, the two sons of the deceased. The insurance company is
directed to pay the enhanced compensation within 30 days from
today. After 30 days, the amount shall be payable with simple
interest of 7.5% per annum from today till realization. Amounts
payable to appellant No. 1, 2 and 4 shall also be invested in FDR
in their respective names for a period of two years. The FDRs
shall not have any facility of loan and advances. However, if the
appellants so desire, they may be allowed to withdraw monthly or
quarterly interest earned on the FDRs. The investments shall be
made in some nationalized bank.
7. The appeal stands disposed of.
M.L. MEHTA
(JUDGE)
November 01, 2011
awanish
