Saroj Devi & Anr. vs Pawan Kumar & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4456 Del

                                      UNREPORTED
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                 FAO 451/1999


SAROJ DEVI & ANR.                                ..... Appellants
                           Through:   Mr. Ashok Popli, Advocate

                  versus


PAWAN KUMAR & ORS.                                 ..... Respondents
                Through:              Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for
                                      the Insurance Company/
                                      Respondent No.3.


%                          Date of Decision : September      13, 2011

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
   to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

                           JUDGMENT

: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. The appellants in this appeal seek to assail the judgment and

award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shahdara, Delhi dated

02.02.1999 whereby a sum of ` 1,93,840/- was awarded to the

appellants with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of

filing, that is, 19.09.1990 to 16.07.1995 and from 23.09.1997 till

realization.

2. The concise facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that on

7.4.1990, Constable Balraj Singh (hereinafter referred to as "the

deceased") met with an untimely end while driving his motor cycle on

G.T. Road, near the Apsara Border, when he was hit by a bus being

driven rashly and negligently by the respondent No.1. He, having

succumbed to the injuries sustained by him, the appellants who are

his legal representatives, filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation in the sum of `

10,00,000/-. The said Claim Petition was not contested by the

respondents No.1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending bus,

who absented themselves from the proceedings and were accordingly

proceeded ex parte. The respondent No.3-M/s. New India Insurance

Co. Ltd., however, filed a written statement denying each and every

averment made in the Claim Petition, but admitting the factum of

insurance of the offending vehicle in the name of the respondent No.2

on the date of the accident. The proceedings eventually culminated in

the passing of the aforesaid impugned award. Aggrieved by the

quantum of compensation awarded to them, the appellants, who were

the claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, have

preferred the present appeal on the ground that a very niggardly

amount of compensation has been awarded to them.

3. Mr. Ashok Popli, the learned counsel for the appellants, in the

course of arguments, contended that the manner of computation of the

award amount by the learned Tribunal was not in consonance with the

well settled principles of law. Relying upon the decisions rendered

by the Supreme Court in this regard, including the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, Mr. Popli

further contended that once it stood established on record that the

deceased had met with the unfortunate accident in the prime of his

life and he died leaving behind him his young wife, an unborn

daughter (who was only six years of age even at the time when the

evidence of the petitioners was recorded) and a widowed mother,

there was no reason for the Tribunal to not take into account the

future prospects of increase in the income of the deceased, more so as

the deceased had a stable job in the Delhi Police and his salary

certificate had been proved on record as Ex.P1. He also contended

that the learned Tribunal failed to take into account the fact that the

deceased was in the age group of persons between 26 years to 30

years of age and the appropriate multiplier for this age group was the

multiplier of 17, approved of by the Supreme Court in the case of

Sarla Verma (supra) and tabulated in paragraph 40 of the aforesaid

decision. He pointed out that apart from awarding a very meagre

amount of pecuniary compensation, the learned Tribunal had awarded

no amount whatsoever towards the loss of consortium and loss of

love and affection of the deceased. Interest on the award amount had

also not been awarded for the period intervening 17.07.1995 to

22.09.1997 on the ostensible ground that the claimants had taken two

years' time for bringing on record the testimonies of their witnesses

and filing certified copies of documents, though there was no delay

caused by the claimants in adducing their evidence.

4. Mr. Pankaj Seth, the learned counsel for the Insurance

Company, sought to counter the aforesaid contentions of the learned

counsel for the appellants and to support the award of the learned

Tribunal on all counts.

5. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the

view that the learned Tribunal while computing the compensation

payable to the appellants did not abide by the principles of law laid

down by the Supreme Court in its various decisions. The deceased

was only 27 years of age on the date of the accident and his entire

career stretched in front of him. Indubitably, with the passage of

time, he would have earned increments and promotions. It is settled

law that where a person is in a stable job and is earning increments

and he dies in a vehicular accident, the legal representatives of such a

person cannot be denied the benefit of the anticipated increase in his

earnings while computing their loss of dependency. The average

annual income of the deceased is thus assessed to be in the sum of `

1,700/- (salary at the time of the accident) plus ` 850/- (anticipated

increase in his earnings to the extent of 50%) = ` 2,550/- x 12 = `

30,600/- per annum. Applying the multiplier of 17 to the aforesaid

multiplicand constituting the average annual loss of dependency of

the appellants, the total loss of dependency of the appellants comes to

` 5,20,200/-, which may be rounded off to ` 5,20,000/-. As regards

non-pecuniary damages, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of `

2,000/- towards the funeral expenses of the deceased and a sum of `

2,000/- towards the loss of estate of the deceased. A further sum of `

6,000/- towards the loss of consortium and ` 10,000/- towards the

loss of love and affection of the deceased is awarded to the appellants.

In all, a sum of ` 5,40,000/- is awarded to the appellants. Interest at

the rate of 7.5% per annum shall be paid to the appellants on the

enhanced amount from the date of the filing of the petition till the

date of realization while interest on the amount awarded by the

learned Tribunal shall be paid at the rate of 12% from the date of the

petition till realization.

6. The appeal is allowed in the above terms with the direction to

the respondent No.3 to deposit the entire award amount as enhanced

by this Court alongwith the interest thereon with the Registrar

General of this Court within 30 days from the date of the passing of

this order. The enhanced amount shall enure to the benefit of the

appellant No.1 - the widow of the deceased.

7. The records be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

Parties shall bear their own costs.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) September 13, 2011 km