Sarla Devi & Ors. vs Altaur Rehman & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4746 Del

*             THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           MAC APPEAL No.858-862/2006

                                             Reserved on: 19.09.2011
                                           Pronounced on: 23.09.2011

SARLA DEVI & ORS.                                       ...... Appellants

                            Through:   Nemo

                                  Versus

ALTAUR REHMAN & ORS.                               ...... Respondents

                            Through:   Nemo


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be
       allowed to see the judgment?                No
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?     No
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest ?                             No

M.L. MEHTA, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and award dated

18.07.2006 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (for

short, "the Tribunal) as passed in Claim Petition No.246 of 2004

whereby a sum of `7,35,000/- was awarded as compensation in favour

of claimants (appellants herein) on account of death of Raj Kumar,

husband of appellant Sarla Devi and father of other appellants/

claimants. Deceased Raj Kumar along with other family members was

travelling in a Maruti Van bearing registration number DL 2C L 4092

when it was hit by a truck bearing registration number HR 38A-2423

being driven by Altaur Rehman (respondent no.1 herein) in a rash and

reckless manner. The deceased Raj Kumar sustained fatal injuries. The

aforesaid compensation of `7,35,000/- was made up of `6 lac towards

loss of dependency by the appellants/ claimant, `1 lac towards loss of

love and affection, `25,000/- on account of loss of consortium and

`10,000/- towards funeral expenses. The appellants assailed the

impugned award and claimed enhanced compensation. Their main

grievance is that the deceased Raj Kumar was aged 41 years and was

an income tax payee having his income from the business of property

dealing and commission. They relied upon the income tax return for the

assessment year 2002-03 whereby he declared his income as `84,050/-.

They also alleged that the multiplier of 12 applied by the Tribunal was

on lower side and the same ought to have been 15, keeping in view the

age of the deceased as 41 years.

2. None appeared for the parties when the matter was listed for

final hearing on 19.09.2011. The case was reserved for judgment with

the directions to the parties to file short synopsis of their arguments

within 3 days. No one has chosen to file their synopsis of arguments.

3. I have perused the record including the impugned award and

proceed to dispose of the appeal.

4. The learned Tribunal did refer to the income tax return of the

year 2002-03 wherein the deceased had declared his income as

`84050/- for the assessment year 2002-03. The learned Tribunal,

however, did not believe the same inasmuch as there were lot of

overwriting showing income from the business of property dealing and

commission and also the fact that it was only a declaration made by the

deceased of his self-assessment and there was no order of assessment

passed by the income tax authorities. Further it was only a photocopy of

the self-assessment return and in these circumstances, the Tribunal

was right in having some doubt about the veracity of this return. In the

absence of there being any evidence led by the claimants/appellants

with regard to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal chose to seek

the guidance from the prescribed minimum wages of skilled workman at

the time of accident. However, though minimum wages as prescribed

during this period were `3286.90 per month, the Tribunal has liberally

taken the income of the deceased to be `50,000/- per annum. Further,

the Tribunal has also considered the future prospects of increase in the

income of the deceased. Though the deceased was in an uncertain and

unstable business of property dealing, the Tribunal has arrived at the

average annual income of the deceased to `75,000/- by adding `1 lac

i.e. double the amount of annual income of `50,000/- and thereby

arriving at average annual income of `75,000/- by taking the mean of

the two [50,000+1,00,000 divided by 2]. Keeping in view the five

dependents i.e. wife and four minor children, the Tribunal deducted

1/3rd as towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and

thus arrived at `50,000/- per annum as the annual dependency loss of

the appellants /claimants. There does not appear to be any infirmity or

illegality in the method adopted by the Tribunal in arriving at this

dependency loss of the appellants. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of

12 which according to my mind and in view of the judgment of Apex

Court in Sarla Verma and others v Delhi Transport Corporation

and another [2009 INDLAW SC 488] ought to have been 14. The

Tribunal seems to have erred in applying a multiplier of 12. That being

so, the dependency loss of the claimants/ appellants would be `7 lac

[50,000x14) instead of `6 lac as calculated by the Tribunal. There does

not appear to be any infirmity with regard to the compensation awarded

on account of loss of consortium of `25,000/-, loss of love and affection

of `1 lac and funeral expenses of `10,000/-.

5. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appellants are entitled to

additional sum of `1 lac in the manner as indicated above. The

respondent no.3/insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced

compensation of `1 lac in the name of the appellant no.1 Sarla Devi

who is the widow of deceased Raj Kumar within 30 days from today

failing which the amount shall be paid with interest @ 7.5% per annum

from the date of this order till the date of realization.

6. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

M.L. MEHTA (JUDGE) September 23, 2011 rd