Sudhir Kr. Gautam & Anr vs Udayan Kumar & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4713 Del

                                      UNREPORTED
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+              MAC. APP. No. 507/2007

SUDHIR KR. GAUTAM & ANR.                   ..... Appellants
                     Through:        Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate
              versus
UDAYAN KUMAR & ORS.                         ..... Respondents
                     Through:        None

%                        Date of Decision :    September 23, 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?

                         J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. By way of this appeal, the appellants, who are the legal

representatives of the deceased Ms. Manushi Gautam seek

enhancement of the compensation awarded to them by the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, New Delhi, by its judgment and award

dated 3.4.2007 passed in Suit No.169/2007 titled as "Sudhir Kumar

Gautam and Anr. Vs. Udayan Kumar and Ors."

2. The facts relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that

on 06.05.2004, Ms. Manushi Gautam (hereinafter referred to as "the

deceased") was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle driven

by her brother. The said motorcycle, when it was in a stationary

position at the red light traffic signal, was hit by an Army Bus bearing

No. 03-P01-3514K from behind. As a result of this impact, Ms.

Manushi Gautam received fatal injuries to which she succumbed on

the spot. A criminal case bearing FIR No.105/04 was registered at

Police Station Chanakyapuri, New Delhi against respondent No.1-the

driver of the offending Army Bus. A Claim Petition under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 having been filed by the father

and mother of the deceased claiming compensation of ` 15,00,000/-

(Rupees Fifteen Lac only) for the accidental demise of their daughter,

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation

in the sum of ` 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Fifty Thousand only)

payable by the respondents jointly and severally alongwith interest at

the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till

its realization. Aggrieved therefrom, the present appeal has been

preferred by the parents of the deceased on the ground that a very

meagre amount of compensation has been awarded by the learned

Tribunal.

3. Mr. O.P. Mannie, the learned counsel for the appellants, has

assailed the quantum of the award, inter alia, on the following

grounds:

(i) The learned Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the

deceased @ ` 3,500/- per month, whereas the deceased

was actually earning ` 10,000/- per month.

(ii) The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the

deceased was an Architect, and ignored altogether the

fact that after qualifying her Higher Secondary

Examination, the deceased had done a three year full-

time diploma course in Architectural Assistantship.

(iii) The learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration the

future prospects of increase in the earnings of the

deceased who was at the threshold of her career and

would have earned much more in the near future if she

had not been crushed to an untimely and premature

death.

(iv) The learned Tribunal erred in deducting one-half (1/2)

towards the personal expenses of the deceased.

(v) The learned Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of

10, instead of the multiplier of 18, which was the

appropriate multiplier in view of the fact that the

deceased was 23 years of age at the time of the accident.

(vi) The learned Tribunal did not award any non-pecuniary

damages on account of loss of estate of the deceased.

4. Although initially the respondents on service of notice of the

filing of the appeal entered appearance, subsequently for reasons best

known to them, the respondents chose to absent themselves from the

proceedings. Despite Court notice having been issued to the

respondent No.3 through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, which

was duly served, none appeared on behalf of the respondents, who

remained ex-parte. Thus this Court did not have the opportunity of

hearing the respondents.

5. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Tribunal shows that

the learned Tribunal, after taking note of the fact that the appellants

had proved on record the provisional certificate of the deceased,

Ex.PW2/6 to show that the deceased had completed a three year

diploma course in Architectural Assistantship from Meera Bai

Polytechnic, New Delhi, held that in the absence of any document on

record to prove the income of the deceased, the income of the

deceased could not be assessed to be more than ` 3,500/- per month.

Mr. Mannie, the learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out

that even the minimum wage rate applicable to a graduate on the date

of the accident was ` 3,622.90 per month and since the deceased had

completed a technical course in Architecture, she was certainly more

qualified than a Graduate simpliciter. I find merit in this submission

of the learned counsel for the appellants and accordingly, I assess the

income of the deceased to be not less than the minimum wage rate on

the date of the accident, as applicable to a graduate, which was in the

sum of ` 3,623/- per month.

6. As regards the future prospects of increase in the income of the

deceased, I have no hesitation in holding that the appellants are

entitled to a 50% increase on the income of the deceased at the time

of her accidental death, for, certainly the deceased who was only 23

years of age on the date of the accident, would have made

advancement in her career over a passage of time. Judicial notice has

been taken time and again of the fact that even the minimum wages

are being revised and increased twice in a year. This Court in a

catena of decisions has held that the minimum wages are doubled

over a period of ten years to beat the inflationary trend, and therefore,

in the present case, it is necessary to provide the benefit of periodical

increase in minimum wages to the appellants while ascertaining the

loss of dependency caused to them as a result of the untimely death of

their daughter. Thus calculated, the average monthly income of the

deceased is assessed to be in the sum of ` 5,434/- per month, [that is,

` 3,623/- (minimum wages on the date of the accident) + ` 7,246/-

(double of minimum wages) divided by two]. The average annual

income of the deceased accordingly works out to ` 65,208/- per

annum.

7. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the

appellants that the Tribunal erred in deducting one-half (1/2) of the

income of the deceased towards her personal expenses, I am not

inclined to agree for the reason that the Supreme Court in the case of

Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and

Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, has unequivocally held that a deduction of

not less than one-half (1/2) of the income of the deceased ought to be

made by all Courts and Tribunals where the deceased is unmarried

and the parents of the deceased are the claimants. Deducting one-half

(1/2) from the income of the deceased, the average annual loss of

dependency of the appellants comes to ` 32,604/- per annum.

8. On the aspect of multiplier also, it is a settled proposition that

the multiplier to be adopted must be according to the age of the

deceased or the claimants whichever is higher. In the present case,

the mother of the deceased, according to the Identity Card issued by

the Election Commission of India, was aged 36 years on 1.1.1994

which means that on the date of the accident, that is, on 6.5.2004, she

was of 46 years of age and thus, the appropriate multiplier, in my

view, would be the multiplier of 13, which is the multiplier approved

of and tabulated by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma

(supra). Thus calculated, the total loss of dependency of the

appellants comes to ` 4,23,852 /-. The learned Tribunal has awarded

a sum of ` 30,000/- towards the loss of love and affection of the

deceased and a sum of ` 10,000/- towards the funeral expenses and

last rites of the deceased. In addition, it is deemed just and fair to

award a sum of ` 10,000/- to the appellants for the loss of estate of

the deceased.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the appellants are held entitled to

receive a sum of ` 4,73,852/-, which may be rounded off to `

4,74,000/- (Rupees Four Lac Seventy Four Thousand Only), from the

respondents No.1 to 3, who are held jointly and severally liable to pay

the same. The award amount is accordingly enhanced by a sum of `

2,24,000/- (that is, ` 4,74,000/- - ` 2,50,000/- = ` 2,24,000/-). The

interest on the enhanced amount shall be payable at the rate of 7.5%

per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the

award amount.

10. The award is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is

disposed of with the direction to the respondents No.1 to 3 to satisfy

the award by depositing the enhanced amount of the award along with

interest thereon with the Registrar General of this Court within 30

days from the date of the passing of this order, which shall be

released to the appellants in equal proportion.

11. Records of the Tribunal be sent back to the concerned Tribunal.

12. A copy of this order be sent to the respondents for compliance.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) September 23, 2011 km