Badri Nath & Another vs Sr. Section Engineer Motor & ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 4704 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Date of Judgment: 23.09.2011

+             MAC APPEAL No. 832/2010


BADRI NATH & ANOTHER                              ...........Appellants
                   Through:             Mr. S.N. Parasar, Advocate.
              Versus

SR. SECTION ENGINEER MOTOR & ANOTHER ....Respondents
                  Through: Mr.K.G. Sharma, Advocate.

                           AND

             MAC APPEAL No. 834/2010

RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS
                                                    ...........Appellants
                         Through:       Mr. S.N. Parasar, Advocate.
                    Versus

SR. SECTION ENGINEER MOTOR & ANOTHER
                                      ..........Respondents
                  Through: Mr.K.G. Sharma, Advocate.

                           AND

             MAC APPEAL No. 800/2010

SURESH & OTHERS                                   ...........Appellants
                         Through:       Mr. S.N. Parasar, Advocate.
                    Versus

SR. SECTION ENGINEER MOTOR & ANOTHER
                                      ..........Respondents
                  Through: Mr.K.G. Sharma, Advocate.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

MAC APPEAL No. 832/2010, 834/2010 & 800/2010                  Page 1 of 6
      1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?              Yes

  3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                       Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. These three appeals have arisen out of the same incident i.e.

the accident occurred on 09.03.2004 at Firozshah Raod and

Kasturba Gandhi Marg crossing; a TCR and a Toyota Qualis had

collided with one another; there were six passengers in the TCR;

five adults and one child; four persons had died and two had

suffered injuries. One of the victims was a child victim. All the six

petitions have been clubbed and common evidence had been led.

The impugned Award dated 06.11.2009 had been passed.

2. Claim petition No. 520/2007 has been preferred by the legal

representatives of the deceased baby Ganga; she was six years of

age at the time of accident. Relying upon the judgment of R.K.

Malik & Another Vs. Kiran Pal and Others II (2009) ACC 705, a

sum of `2,25,000/- had been awarded under the head of pecuniary

damages. Under the non-pecuniary head `10,000/- had been

awarded as funeral expenses. This part of the Award has been

impugned. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance

upon a judgment of this Court reported in II (2010) ACC 9

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Farzana wherein in the case

of a child victim ` 75,000/- had been awarded for the 'pain and

sufferings' and another sum of Rs.75,000/- for 'loss of future

prospects'; this sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was awarded under the head

of 'non-pecuniary damages'. The total awarded amount would thus

in the case of a child victim come to `3,75,000/-. In the judgment

of Farzana (Supra), the Court had placed reliance upon the

parameters and guidelines laid down by R.K. Malik (Supra); the

impugned Award granting a sum of `10,000/- under the non-

pecuniary head thus suffers from an infirmity. The appellant in

terms of the judgments of R.K. Malik (Supra) and Farzana (Supra)

is entitled to `2,25,000/- under the head of pecuniary damages

and a sum of `1,50,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary

damages totaling a sum of `3,75,000/-. The interest quotient

remains the same. The impugned Awarded is accordingly

modified in Claim Petition No.520/2007.

3. Claim petition No. 506/2007 has been filed by the claimants

of the victim Laxmi; she was 38 years of age at the time of

accident; she had died about four months after the date of

accident which was on 09.03.2004. Learned counsel for the

respondents submits that there is no nexus of the death of the

victim with the injuries. Admittedly the victim remained in

hospital for two months, contention of the appellant is that

because of the grievous injuries sustained by her, death had

resulted. These averments which were made on oath by the

claimant of the deceased Laxmi i.e. in the affidavit of Sohan Lal

have not been disputed; no cross-examination had been effected of

Sohan Lal on this count. Death was clearly correlated to the

accident. The affidavit of Sohan Lal had averred that his wife

Laxmi was 38 years of age; she was doing work of knitting and

stitching and was earning `4,000/- per month. These facts also not

having been controverted, the impugned Award has clearly erred

in not granting any amount to the victim of deceased Laxmi on

account of 'loss of dependency'. In terms f the judgment of this

Court reported in II (2010) ACC 150 Oriental Insurance Company

Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Sharma & others, a sum of `3,000/- per month

would be the correct figure for computing the income of the

house-wife in the absence of any documentary evidence to the

contrary. Multiplier applied of 15 in terms of the judgment of

2009 (6) Scale 129 Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation & Anr; the amount of `5,40,000/- is thus calculated

under the head of 'loss of dependency'. Under the non-pecuniary

damages, medical bills have been reimbursed for `34,140/-;

`5,000/- on account of special diet and conveyance; `10,000/- for

'loss of love and affection' and for funeral expenses `10,000/-;

these amounts have not been assailed. Thus a total sum of

`5,99,140/- is awarded in favour of the claimant; the interest

quotient shall remain the same. The impugned Awarded is

accordingly modified in Claim Petition No. 506/2007.

4. Claim Petition No. 512/2007 has been preferred by Suresh

who is the legal representatives of deceased Daulat Rani. Daulat

Rani was a house-wife; she was aged 45 years and as per the

affidavit of her husband, she was doing the work of knitting and

stitching and was earning `3,500/- per month. However in terms

of the documentary proof in terms of the judgment of Apex Court

reported in III (2010) ACC 313 (SC) Arun Kumar Agarwal & Anr.

Vs. National Insurance Co. & Anr. a sum of `3,000/- per month

was taken as the income of the deceased to which multiplier of 14

was applied totaling a sum of `5,04,000/-; deduction of 1/3rd has

been effect therefrom. The petitioner is aggrieved by this fact. His

contention is that no amount should have been deducted and for

this proposition he has placed reliance upon Pankaj Sharma

(Supra) where also a Bench of this Court had awarded a sum of

`5,04,000/- under the head of 'loss of dependency' to the claimant

of the deceased house-wife i.e. by taking her services to be valued

at `3,000/- per month to which multiplier of 14 was applied. This

judgment of Pankaj Sharma had relied upon the ratio judgment of

Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar II (2001) ACC 316. In para 4 of

Pankaj Sharma (Supra) a coordinate Bench of this Court has held

that in case of Lata Wadhwa (supra) no deduction was made from

the value of the services of the deceased house wife and as such

deduction from this amount was not permissible. Following the

aforenoted ratio, deduction is disallowed. No amount has also

been awarded under the head of 'loss of love and affection'. No

other modification is made. A sum of `10,000/- is accordingly

awarded under this head. The awarded amount in the aforenoted

claim petition would thus come to `5,24,000/- which would carry

interest in terms of the Award. The impugned Awarded is

accordingly modified in Claim Petition No.512/2007.

5. All the three appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 a