Kavita And Ors. vs Kavita And Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 5735 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Reserved on: 17th October, 2011
                                   Pronounced on: 25th November, 2011
+      FAO 87/2001

       KAVITA AND ORS.                              .... Appellants
                    Through:             Ms. Aruna Mehta, Advocate.

                    versus

       RAJA RAM & ORS.                              ..... Respondents
                    Through:             Mr. Pankaj Seth 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.

CM APPL.13267/2010 (Restoration) in FAO 87/2001

Heard. For the reasons stated in the application the same is allowed. Order dated 06.07.2011 is recalled and the Appeal is restored to its original number.

Application stands disposed of.

FAO 87/2001

1. This appeal is for enhancement of amount of compensation in respect of death of Surender Kumar who was aged about 25 years at the time of the accident which took place on 02.12.1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) by the impugned award dated 06.4.2000 awarded compensation of ` 1,92,000/-.

2. The Appellant's grievance is that though the deceased income was ` 2,500/- per month, the Tribunal estimated the same to be only ` 1500/- per month.

3. It is submitted that no compensation towards conventional head like loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses was granted.

4. No cross objections / cross Appeal has been filed by the Respondents.

5. It was established on record that the deceased was manufacturing cardboard boxes. Income of the deceased was not taken as ` 2,500/- per month. Non taxable income in the Assessment Year 1988-89 was ` 18,000/- only. Thus, the Tribunal rightly believed deceased's income to be ` 1500/- per month.

6. It was established from the Appellant No.1 and two supporting witnesses' testimony that the deceased was engaged in

manufacturing cardboard boxes. This accident took place while the deceased was travelling in a tempo to supply the said boxes.

7. In the circumstances, on the basis of Sarla Verma & Ors. v.

Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009 (6) SCC 121 future prospects ought to have been considered; deducting one-fourth towards the personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 18, the dependency works out as ` 3,64,608/- (1500 + 750 - 562 x 12 x 18).

8. Considering that the accident took place in the year 1988 and the deceased left behind a young widow, two minor sons and old parents, the Appellants were entitled to be awarded a sum of ` 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, ` 10,000/- towards loss

of love and affection and ` 10,000/- towards loss of estate and ` 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation thus works out to ` 3,99,608/- (3,64,608 + 35,000/-).

9. The Appellants shall be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of ` 1,72,608/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.

10. The deceased's father has since expired and the minor children Appellants No.2 and 3 must have attained the age of majority. Out of the enhanced compensation of ` 25,000/- each along with the proportionate interest shall be payable to Appellants No.2 to

4. Rest of the amount along with interest shall be paid to Appellant No.1.

11. 70% of the enhanced amount shall be held in a fixed deposit in the name of the Appellants in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch. Rest of the amount shall be deposited in their saving bank account and they shall be entitled to withdraw the same at their will. The Appellants shall be entitled to monthly payment of interest which shall be credited in their savings account.

12. Respondent No.2 New India Insurance Company Limited took the defence of breach of terms of the policy. The insurance policy, however, was not proved. The Tribunal, therefore, declined to grant recovery rights to the Respondent insurance company. Since the insurance policy was not proved regarding the payment of the extra premium, the Tribunal rightly declined to grant recovery rights to the Respondent No.2 Insurance company.

13. The impugned award is modified and the appeal stands disposed of in above terms. No costs.

14. All pending applications stands disposed of.

15. Copy of the order be given Dasti to the Appellants and UCO bank, DHC Branch. Copy of the order may be sent to the Trial Court for information.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE NOVEMBER 25, 2011 vk