Delhi High Court
Mr. Ravindra Nath Sharma & Ors vs Mr. Mohanlal & Ors. on 29 November, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 24th November, 2011
Date of Decision: 29th November, 2011
+ MAC APP. 578/2010
MR. RAVINDRA NATH SHARMA & ORS ..... Appellants
Through Mr.Kumar Dushyant Singh, Advocate
versus
MR. MOHANLAL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for
Respondent Oriental Insurance Co.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. This appeal is for enhancement of compensation in respect of death
of Ms. Phool Varsha Sharma who was aged about 53 years at the time of
accident which took place on 25.02.2008. The Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (the Tribunal) by the impugned award dated 12.04.2010
awarded a compensation of ` 9,20,000/-
2. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident
took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Toyota Innova No.
DL-4C-AE 4543 which was driven by respondent No.1; was owned by
respondent No.2 and was insured by respondent No.3 Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. With regard to the payment of the compensation, the
Tribunal opined that the deceased was survived by his son appellant
No.2, daughter-in-law appellant No.3, grandsons appellants No.4 & 5.
The Tribunal held that Ravinder Nath Sharma(appellant No.1) was the
only dependent claimant on the deceased; took the net income of the
deceased ` 12,078/- applied the multiplier of 9 calculated the dependency
at ` 8,69,616/- after awarding conventional sum for loss of love and
affection, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of state, computed
the compensation as ` 9,20,000/-.
3. The appellants' grievance is that at the deceased age (53 years), the
appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verma & Ors.v. Delhi Transport
Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 was 11. Her actual income was `
32,238/- which ought to have been taken into consideration for
computing the compensation. It is averred that even if the son was not
financially dependent, he was a legal heir and deduction of 1/3 ought to
have been made instead of 1/2.
4. No cross-appeal/cross-objections have been filed by the
respondents. The deceased was employed as a stenographer Grade-I in
Prasar Bharti, Doordarshan. Her gross salary was ` 32,238/-. There were
certain recoveries and she was contributing ` 10,000/- per month towards
GPF. An amount of ` 20,160/- was deducted from the deceased actual
income by the tribunal without any basis. In fact after filing of the
appeal, a certificate was filed as Annexure A/1 along with the affidavit of
the appellant Ravindra Nath Sharma to show that the deduction of `
10,000/- was made from the salary towards the third installment of leave
without pay availed by the deceased during the period 07.05.2007 to
11.08.2007 and 12.08.2007 to 27.09.2007. Thus, recovery of ` 10,000/-
towards over pay and deduction of ` 10,000/- towards GPF could not
have been taken into consideration while computing the deceased actual
income minus Income Tax.
5. It is urged on behalf of the respondent insurance company that the
deceased was 53 years of age and even if she would have worked till her
superannuation, she was entitled to the salary only for the period of seven
years. Thus, urged the learned counsel for the respondent that the
appropriate multiplier was 7.
6. The multiplier method has been adopted to bring uniformity and
award just compensation. The selection of multiplier was renewed by the
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) after reviewing the entire law on
the subject. It cannot be said that many of the government employees
work after their superannuation. Some of them even get placements
higher than at the time of superannuation. In these circumstances,
multiplier of 11 ought to have been applied as per the law laid down in
Sarla Verma (supra).
7. The son might be a legal heir, but he was not financially dependent
on the deceased. In Sarla Verma, the Supreme Court held that while
computing the dependency, father was not to be considered dependent as
he was likely to have his own income unless evidence was led to the
contrary. In the circumstances, the son, daughter-in-law and the grand
children were rightly not considered dependents by the Tribunal for the
purpose of computing the compensation.
8. In para 20 of the Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court held that
actual income of the deceased less Income Tax should be the starting
point for calculating the compensation. Since the deceased was 53 years,
she was not entitled to any increase on account of future prospects. On
the basis of net income, the actual salary works out as ` 32,238/- X 12
=386856 - Income Tax `61,300/- (for a female for the Assessment Year
2008-09) = 3,25,556/- per annum. On applying the multiplier of 11 and
deducting 50% towards personal living expenses, the compensation for
loss of dependency is computed as ` 17,90,558/-. On addition of `
25,000/- for loss of love and affection, ` 10,000/- for loss of consortium,
` 5,000/- for funeral expenses, ` 5,000/- towards loss of state as granted
by the tribunal. The total compensation works out to ` 18,35,558/-.
9. The appellant No.1 shall be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum
on enhanced compensation of (` 18,35,558 - 9,20,000/-) ` 9,15,558/-
from the filing of the petition till the realization of the amount (as granted
by the Tribunal) which the respondents are jointly and severally liable to
pay. Respondent No.3 Oriental Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the enhanced compensation with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch
within six weeks from today. 20% of the amount along with interest
shall be deposited in the Savings Account which the appellant shall be
entitled to withdraw at his will. Rest of the amount shall be held in Fixed
Deposit Receipt for a period of three years. Appellant No.1 shall not be
entitled to premature withdrawal of any amount without the leave of the
Court.
10. The appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 29, 2011
pst
