Delhi High Court
Saroj Bala & Ors vs Rajesh Kumar & Anr on 18 November, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 18th October, 2011
Pronounced on: 18th November, 2011
+ MAC APP. 184/2008
SAROJ BALA & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Ms. Suman N. Rawat, Advocate.
Versus
RAJESH KUMAR & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohan Babu Agarwal Advocate
with Mr. Harkesh Chand Aggarwal
Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the Order? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the Order should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appellants impugn the award dated 14.11.2007 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) whereby the
Appellants were awarded compensation of ` 3,77,000/- on the
ground that the compensation awarded is too low and cannot be
said to be just compensation as envisaged under Section 168 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act).
2. It is admitted case of the parties that on 24.12.1992 i.e. on the
date of the accident, the deceased was aged about 29 years and
was employed as a Constable in Delhi Police. He was getting a
salary of ` 2393/- per month. He was survived by his widow,
two sons, a daughter besides his old parents (the Appellants
herein).
3. The grievance of the Appellants is that the deceased had bright
future prospects and would have received a salary of ` 11,429/-
per month, as proved by PW-6. It is averred that the multiplier
of 14 applied by the Tribunal was too low as a multiplier of 18
(on the age of 29) has been given in the second schedule to the
Act.
4. It is submitted that deduction of one third of the salary was
made by the Tribunal though it ought to have been one fourth as
the number of dependents of the deceased was six.
5. On the other hand, it is urged by the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company that the future prospects were taken into
consideration by the Tribunal; multiplier has been rightly
applied and deduction of one third for personal expenses was
justified as the deceased was working as a Constable in Delhi
Police.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reviewed the law with regard to
the selection of multiplier and consideration of the future
prospects and held that uniformity has to be achieved in
payment of the compensation. The Supreme Court in the case
of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) Scale
129 laid down the following principles for grant of
compensation in death cases:-
"I. MULTIPLIER
Age of the Multiplier
deceased (in
years)
II. DEDUCTION FOR PERSONAL AND LIVING
EXPENSES
Deceased - unmarried
(i) Deduction towards personal expenses.
: 1/2 (50%)
(ii)
Deduction where the family of the
bachelor is large and dependent on the
income of the deceased.
: 1/3rd (33.33%)
Deceased - married
(i) 2 to 3 dependent family members. : 1/3rd
(ii) 4 to 6 dependent family members : 1/4th
(iii) More than 6 family members : 1/5th
(iv) Subject to the evidence to the
contrary. : Father, brother and
sisters will not be
considered as
dependents.
III. FUTURE PROSPECTS
(i) Permanent job : Actual salary - tax + 50%
Below 40 years of age towards future prospects.
(ii) Permanent job : Actual salary - tax + 30%
Between 40-50 years towards future prospects.
(iii) More than 50 years with: Actual salary only.
permanent job. No addition for future
prospects.
(iv) Deceased employed at a fixed: Only actual income to be
Salary (without provision for taken. No addition.
Annual increments)"
7. In the present case the date of birth of the deceased as per the
matriculation certificate was 09.01.1963 which was not disputed
during trial. The salary certificate Ex.PW-6/A established
deceased's gross salary as ` 2393/- per month. There was
deduction of ` 30/- towards group insurance and ` 100/-
towards GPF subscription.
8. In Shyamwati Sharma & Ors. v. Karam Singh & Ors. 2010 ACJ
1968, the Supreme Court held that deduction towards GPF, Life
Insurance Premium, etc. should be excluded from the income
while determining the income for the purposes of computation
of compensation.
9. Admittedly, the deceased was not paying any income tax and
thus, the deceased's salary at the time of his death was ` 2393/-.
10. Since this claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act,
the multiplier of 18 as given in the second schedule cannot be
applied. Though the age of the deceased at the time of accident
was 29 years, yet the Tribunal mistook the age as 39 years. This
appears to be a clerical mistake. Thus, the Tribunal committed
error in selection of the multiplier. On the age of 29 the
multiplier as per Sarla Verma (supra) would be 17. Similarly,
if we add 50% of the salary to the salary of the deceased at the
time of his death on the basis of the principles laid down in
Sarla Verma (supra), towards future prospects, the multiplicant
would come to ` 2393/- + 50% of ` 2393/- = ` 3589/-.
Moreover, since the number of dependents was six, the
deduction would be 1/4th and not 1/3rd as held by the Tribunal.
The compensation to be awarded on the basis of the principles
enumerated above would come to ` 3589/- minus 1/4th (i.e. `
898/-) = ` 2691/-. Applying the multiplier of 17 the
compensation works out to (2691 x 12 x 17) = ` 5,48,964/-.
11. Thus, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the
impugned award, the Appellants are entitled to an additional
sum of ` 1,71,964/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from
the date of filing of the petition till date of deposit.
12. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are jointly and severely liable to pay
the compensation. Since the offending vehicle No.HNU-5805
was insured with Respondent No.2 (The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd.); the Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the
balance amount of compensation i.e. ` 1,71,964/- alongwith
interest within thirty days.
13. This accident took place on 24.12.1992. The three minor
children might have attained the age of majority. Therefore, out
of additional compensation awarded, the Appellants No. 2 to 5
shall be paid a sum of ` 15,000/- each along with proportionate
interest; rest of the compensation shall be payable to Appellant
No.1 (widow of the deceased).
14. The amount awarded to the Appellants No.2 to 5 shall be kept
in a fixed deposit for a period of three years. Out of the
additional compensation payable to the Appellant No.1. a sum
of ` 15,000/- shall be deposited in Appellant No.1's saving
account. Rest of the amount payable to the Appellant No.1
shall be kept in an FDR for a period of ten years. The
Appellants shall be entitled to payment of interest every month
which shall be credited in her savings account.
15. The appeal is allowed in above terms. No costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 18, 2011/vk
