Delhi High Court
Roopa Rani & Ors. vs Harsh Kumar Mehta & Anr. on 18 November, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 18th November, 2011
+ MAC APP. 32/2011
ROOPA RANI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through Mr. Puneet Agrawal, Advocate.
versus
HARSH KUMAR MEHTA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajat Brar 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?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Order should be reported
in the Digest?
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. This appeal is for enhancement of claim of compensation
sought at the instance of the parents and siblings of deceased
Jitender Gulati who was aged about 23 years and was earning `
8480/- per month
2. The grievance of the Appellants is that the multiplier as per the
age of the deceased should have been applied and the future
prospects should also have been considered. It is submitted that
an award of ` 10,000/- on account of love and affection was too
low.
3. During trial, it has come in evidence that the two siblings i.e.
Ms. Priya Gulati and Shri Gulbhshan (Appellants No.3 and 4
herein) were working. The Tribunal accepted the income of the
deceased to be ` 8480/- as proved by the salary certificate;
calculated 50% as dependency and applied the multiplier of 9
according to the age of the Appellant No.1 Roopa Rani, the
mother of the deceased. The case is squarely covered by Sarla
Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009 (6)
SCC 121. In para 31 and 32, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a
different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally,
50% is deducted as personal and living expenses,
because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to
spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also
the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in
which event the contribution to the parent(s) and
siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject
to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have
his own income and will not be considered as a
dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a
dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary,
brothers and sisters will not be considered as
dependents, because they will either be independent
and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father.
32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and
siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a
dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal
and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the
contribution to the family. However, where the family of
the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of
the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed
mother and large number of younger non-earning
sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses
may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the
family will be taken as two-third."
4. In this case, the siblings were gainfully employed and,
therefore, the deduction towards the personal expenses could
not have been taken as one-third. Thus, there is no error in
computation of the dependency.
5. A sum of ` 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection,
however, seems to be on the lower side, the same is enhanced to
` 25,000/-. The award amount is, therefore, enhanced by `
15,000/- along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum to be paid by
the Respondent No.2 the Insurance Company within 30 days,
which shall be immediately released to Appellant No.1 Smt.
Roopa Rani.
6. The appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified to
the extent indicated above. No costs.
7. Copy of the order may be sent to the trial court for information
and compliance.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 18, 2011
vk
