Smt. Dhanwanti Devi & Ors. vs Om Prakash & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4780 Del

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 4780 Del
Judgement Date : 26 September, 2011

Delhi High Court

Smt. Dhanwanti Devi & Ors. vs Om Prakash & Ors. on 26 September, 2011

Author: Reva Khetrapal

                                      UNREPORTED
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 FAO 174/2000


SMT. DHANWANTI DEVI & ORS.           ..... Appellants
                 Through: Mr. Kundan Kumar Lal,
                           Advocate.

                  versus


OM PRAKASH & ORS.                                 ..... Respondents
                           Through:   Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for
                                      the respondent No.3-Insurance
                                      Company.


%                          Date of Decision :   September 26, 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. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 18.09.1999, whereby an award

in the sum of ` 1,89,400/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum

from the date of the filing of the petition till realisation was passed in

favour of the appellants and against the respondents, for the untimely

demise of Shri Om Prakash in a motor vehicular accident which took

place on 13.01.1989.

2. Mr. Kundan Kumar Lal, the counsel for the appellants,

contends that the computation of compensation payable to the

appellants made by the learned Tribunal is not in accordance with the

well-settled principles of law. A three fold contention is raised by the

counsel for the appellants as follows:

(i) The learned Tribunal erred in not taking into account the

prospects of increase in the income of the deceased, who

was only 37 years of age on the date of the accident, his

date of birth being 02.07.1952 and the accident having

occurred on 30.01.1989.

(ii) The deceased having left behind his wife, four daughters

and mother, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted

not more than one-fourth of the income of the deceased

towards his personal expenses and maintenance; instead

the Tribunal deducted one-third of the income of the

deceased on account of his personal expenses.

(iii) No amount whatsoever was awarded by the Tribunal

towards the loss of estate and loss of love and affection

of the deceased.

3. Mr. Pankaj Seth, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3-

Insurance Company, on the other hand, sought to support the award

and to contend that the compensation awarded to the appellants was

just and fair.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the evidence which is placed on record by the learned counsel

for the appellants, I am inclined to agree with the contention of the

appellants' counsel that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken into

consideration the future prospects of increase in the income of the

deceased while assessing the average annual income of the deceased

and computing the loss of dependency of the appellants. I say so on

the strength of 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, wherein it is laid down that where the deceased is

in a stable job and below 40 years of age, a fifty percent addition

towards future increase in his income to his actual salary income on

the date of the accident is warranted.

5. In the present case, there is on record the testimony of PW3-

P.S.Bisht, an official from the Central Vehicle Depot, Delhi Cantt,

where the deceased was employed, to the effect that the deceased

joined the C.V.D. Delhi Cantt as 'Packer' (male) on 24.11.1977. The

said witness also proved on record the pay certificate of the deceased

(Exhibit PW3/1), which is signed by the Assistant Personal Official

(Finance) of the concerned department. It is not in dispute that the

deceased in the present case was 37 years of age and he, being in a

stable job, his average annual income on the date of the accident is

assessed to be in the sum of ` 2,100/- per month [` 1,400/- (actual

income on the date of the accident) + ` 700/- (anticipated income)],

that is to say, ` 25,200/- per annum.

6. On the aspect of deduction to be made from the income of the

deceased towards his personal expenses and maintenance, the

Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) has laid down the

following guidelines:

"14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six."

7. Deducting one-fourth from the income of the deceased in view

of the fact that the deceased was survived by six legal representatives,

the average annual loss of dependency of the appellants come to `

18,900/- per annum. It is well-settled that the aforesaid multiplicand

constituting the loss of dependency has to be augmented by applying a

proper multiplier to it. Learned counsel for the appellants does not

dispute that the appropriate multiplier in the instant case would be the

multiplier of 15 instead of the multiplier of 16, which has been

adopted by the learned Tribunal. Thus calculated, the total loss of

dependency of the appellants comes to ` 2,83,500/-. In addition, the

appellants are also held entitled to the sum of ` 5,000/- towards the

loss of consortium and ` 2,000/- towards the funeral expenses of the