Delhi High Court
Shiva Ram Singh & Anr. vs Sudha Rani & Others on 29 November, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on 24th November, 2011
Pronounced on: 29th November, 2011
+ MAC APP.781/2010
Shiva Ram Singh & Anr. ..... Appellants
Through Mr.Sameer Chandra &
Mr.Zuber Raja Advocates
Versus
Sudha Rani & Others ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.R.C.Mahajan Advocate
for respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. This appeal is for enhancement of amount of compensation in
respect of death of Sunil Chauhan, who was aged about 31
years at the time of the accident which took place on 17th June,
2005. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (the Tribunal) by
the impugned award dated 22.7.2010 granted compensation of `
21,86,000/-.
2. The Appellants' grievance is that the actual income of the
deceased as per the salary certificate, i.e., ` 17,500/- was not
considered, though the he was a disabled employee; his future
prospects were not taken into account and in spite of the fact
that there were four dependants, i.e., widow, mother and two
children, a deduction of 1/3 towards personal expenses was
made instead of ¼.
3. I find sufficient substance in the contention raised on
appellants' behalf.
4. After taking note of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176; Sarla Dixit v. Balwant
Yadav (1996) 3 SCC 179; Abati Bezbaruah v. Geological
Survey of India (2003) 2 SCC 148, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
laid down the following principles for grant of compensation in
death cases in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors.v. Delhi
Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 as under:-
"I. MULTIPLIER
Age of the deceased Multiplier
(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)"
IV. NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES
(i) Compensation for loss of estate : ` 5,000/- to
` 10,000/-
(ii) Compensation for loss of consortium : ` 5,000/- to
` 10,000/-
(iii) Compensation for pain and sufferings : Nil
and hardship
(iv) Funeral expenses, cost of transportation : Actual
of body and medical expenses"
5. It is well settled law that while applying the multiplier, the age
of the Claimant/that of the deceased whichever is higher is to be
considered. (UPSRTC & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors. 1996
(4) SCC 362).
6. In the case of death of a bachelor the multiplier will be as per
the age of the mother of the deceased.
7. During evidence, the appellants proved the salary certificate,
Ex.PW-3/A, which showed deceased's gross salary. An amount
of ` 900/- per month on account of PF(Company share), bonus
@ ` 313/- per month(payable annually), medical reimbursement
@ ` 1,000/- per month(payable monthly), leave travel allowance
@ ` 625/- per month(payable annually) were not taken into
account while considering the deceased's income. As per Sarla
Verma (supra), it is stated that actual income of the deceased
minus income tax has to be considered for determining the
dependency. Unfortunately, the Tribunal did not deduct any
amount towards payment of income tax and also did not
consider the future prospects which ought to have been
considered as the deceased was working as an Assistant
Manager-Production for the last more than two years in a
renowned export house.
8. The Tribunal also applied the multiplier of 18, though it ought
to have been only 16 as per the age of the deceased being 31
years, which was not in dispute. The non-taxable income of the
deceased in the year 2005-06 was ` 1,50,000/-. His net annual
income, including future prospects was ` 17,500 plus 50% x 12
= 3,15,000 - 68,000 (Tax:19000+ 30% of the income above `
1,50,000/-) = 2,46,500/- The dependency works out at `
2,46,500 minus 25% (personal expenses) x 16 = 29,58,000/-.
The Tribunal awarded ` 50,000/- towards loss of love and
affection, ` 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, ` 10,000/-
towards loss of estate, and ` 15,000/- towards funeral expenses,
which cannot be faulted. Normally a conventional sum of `
25,000/- is granted towards loss of love and affection but in the
facts and circumstances of the case I would not interfere in the
same. The total compensation payable, thus, comes to `
30,43,000/- as against the award of ` 21,86,000/- The Tribunal
granted interest @ 8% per annum, which cannot be said to be
unreasonable. The respondents are liable to pay the enhanced
compensation with interest @ 8%.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, I hereby award an
additional compensation of ` 8,57,000/- which shall carry
interest @ 8% per annum as granted by the Tribunal from the
date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.
10. The appeal stands disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 292011
RS/
