Delhi High Court
Usha Rani & Ors. vs Pritam Singh & Ors. on 29 November, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: November 29, 2011
+ MAC.APP. 137/2006
USHA RANI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through Mr. K.P. Mavi, Advocate with
Mr. B.P. Mishra, Advocate
versus
PRITAM SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate for
respondent No.3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL
JUDGMENT
%
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
CM No.21601/2011(Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
MAC.APP. 137/2006
1. This appeal is enhancement of compensation in respect of death
of the deceased Jagmohan Lal Rathi , who was aged 29 years and 10
months on the date of accident which took place on 19.09.1984. The
claim petition was dismissed by the tribunal by an order dated
03.01.1995. FAO No.119/1995 preferred by the appellants, came to
be allowed by the High Court. In Para 10, the High Court held as
under:
"10. For the purposes of Motor Vehicle Act, surely, it cannot be said that
the accident has not taken place resulting in the death of Shri Jagmohan Lal.
That being the case, I set aside the finding of the court below. As regards the
question whether the Insurance Company would be liable to pay
compensation in the first instance as held in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs.
Asha Rani & Ors. JT 2002(10) SC 162, that the Insurance Company may not
be itself liable to discharge the award of compensation. Yet in M/s National
Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur & Ors. JT 2004 (1) SC 15, it has been held
that in the first instance the Insurance Company must discharge the award but
would be well within its right to recover the same from the owner and the
driver of the offending vehicle. This has further been followed by the
Supreme Court in Sri Pramod Kumar Agrawal and Ors. Vs. Smt. Mushtari
Begum & Ors., JT 2004(6) SC 501."
The tribunal was directed to compute the amount of compensation
payable to the appellants.
2. The respondent insurance company preferred an appeal against
the order dated 04.11.2004 whereby it was ordered that the amount of
compensation may be quantified but the final award shall not be
executed until further orders of the Supreme Court.
3. By an order dated 10.02.2006, the tribunal took the average
carry home salary of the deceased to be ` 600/-, made addition of 50%
towards future prospects on the basis of Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav
(1996) 3 SCC 179 and Sarla Verma & Ors.v. Delhi Transport
Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121, applied the multiplier of 17 and
computed the dependency at ` 1,22,400/-. The tribunal further
awarded the conventional sums towards loss of love and affection,
loss of estate etc. and awarded total compensation of ` 1,34,400/-.
4 It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the law
as laid down in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav(supra) and Sarla Verma
& Ors .v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra) cannot do justice to
the appellants as the deceased would have got a salary of about
`12,000/- for the year 2005 (if he would have been alive) and his
salary would have increased further by the time he would have retired.
5. All these factors were considered by the Supreme Court in
Sarla Varma v. DTC (supra) and it was held that only 50% addition
can be made towards future prospects.
6. There is evidence on record to show that the deceased was
getting a total salary of ` 880/- per month. The deduction towards
payment of City Compensatory Allowance and House Rent Allowance
which was part of salary ought not to have been made by the tribunal.
Thus, applying the ratio of Sarla Varma v. DTC (supra), the loss of
dependency comes to ` 2,12,000/- after adding further sum of `
10,000/- each towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of
consortium and ` 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, the total
compensation comes to ` 2,47,000/-.
7. It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
tribunal awarded interest @ 9% till the year 2000, but thereafter
illegally reduced the rate of interest at 5.5%. It is true that the interest
rates have fallen after the year 2000, but today again the rate of
interest is on a rise. As per the Sarla Varma (supra), the appellant
would be entitled to interest @ 7.5% from 01.01.2000 till the payment.
It is clarified that since the execution of the award has been stayed by
the Supreme Court, the payment of compensation shall be subject to
the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. The appeal is allowed in above terms. No costs.
CM No.73/2011
In view of the orders passed above and the clarification that the
final award shall not be executed until further orders of the Supreme
Court, the review application is dismissed.
The application stands disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 29, 2011
pst
