Wednesday, 29, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Usha Rani & Ors. vs Pritam Singh & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4911 Del

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 4911 Del
Judgement Date : 30 September, 2011

Delhi High Court
Usha Rani & Ors. vs Pritam Singh & Ors. on 30 September, 2011
Author: M. L. Mehta
*             THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    MAC APPEAL No.137-40/2006

                                        Reserved on: 21.09.2011
                                      Pronounced on: 30.09.2011

USHA RANI & ORS.                                   ...... Appellants

                           Through:   Nemo

                                Versus

PRITAM SINGH & ORS.                              ...... Respondents

                           Through:   Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate


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. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants

challenging the award dated 10.02.2006 passed by learned Motor

Accidents Claim Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) whereby a sum

of `1,34,400/- was awarded as compensation to the appellants in

the Claim Petition filed by them for seeking compensation on

account of death of Jagmohan Lal, the husband of appellant no.1

Usha Rani and father of minor children Sunita, Anuj and Nitin.

2. On 19.2.1984, the deceased was travelling in a truck

bearing registration number PBO 4695 which was being driven by

respondent Pritam Singh in a rash and reckless manner and when

he applied the brakes, the deceased was thrown out of the truck

and died instantly. The awarded compensation of `1,34,400/- by

the Tribunal was made up of `1,22,400/- on account of loss of

dependency of the claimants, `2,000/- on account of funeral

expenses, `5,000/- on account of loss of consortium, `2500/- on

account of loss of estate and `2500/- on account of loss of love

and affection. In arriving at loss of dependency of appellants, the

Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.600/-

and added Rs.1200/- being double the salary and thereafter took

the mean by dividing it by 2 and thereby arrived at the average

monthly income of the deceased at `900/- per month. The learned

Tribunal made deduction of 1/3rd i.e. `300/- per month as towards

the personal and living expenses of the deceased and thus

assessed `600/- per month or say `7200/- per annum as loss of

dependency of the appellants/claimants. The Tribunal applied a

multiplier of 17 and arrived at a figure of `1,22,400/- as loss of

dependency of the appellants/ claimants. The appellants/

claimants have assailed the award alleging that the compensation

awarded to them is highly on the lower side. It was averred that

the deceased was working in MCD as LDC and had he not died in

the accident, his salary would have been increased to `12,000/-

per month in the year 2005. In this regard, reliance was placed on

the testimony of PW7, an official of MCD. The compensation is

also challenged on other grounds. The awarded rate of interest @

9% till the year 2000 and thereafter @ 5.5.% till the date of

payment was also alleged to be on lower side.

3. It is seen that PW1 had testified about the deceased to be

working as LDC and getting a gross salary of `778/- prior to his

promotion as LDC. In the year 1980, he was working as peon in

MCD. Mr. P.L. Chawla, PW7, an official from MCD also testified

that at the time of death of the deceased, he was getting a salary

of `880/- per month though he had stated that had the deceased

not died, his salary would have been about `12,000/- per month.

He also stated that the deceased would have retired from service

on 30.4.2014. There were some contradictions about the salary of

the deceased as deposed by PW1 and PW7. The Tribunal

calculated the carry home salary of the deceased as `600/- which

was exclusive of HRA and CCA. In my view, the learned Tribunal

seems to have erred in arriving at this calculation of `600/- per

month as the carry home salary of the deceased. There was

categorical evidence of PW7, an official of MCD, that the deceased

was getting salary of `880/- per month. Since the deceased was in

a stable government job and there were prospects of his future

promotion and increase in the salary, the Tribunal ought to have

given due consideration to the same in assessing the average

monthly income of the deceased. Be that as it may, the average

monthly income of the deceased can be taken to be `1320 per

month [880+1760 divided by 2]. Since the deceased left behind 4

legal heirs, 1/4th of his salary ought to have been deducted

towards his personal and living expense instead of 1/3 rd. That

being so, a sum of `330/- can be deducted from his salary as

towards his personal and living expense and as per this a sum of

`990/- per month could be said to be the loss on account of

dependency of the claimants/ appellants. Accordingly, `990/- per

month or say `11880/- per annum can be said to be the loss of

dependency of the appellants/ claimants. Keeping in view the age

of the deceased to be 29-30 years, a multiplier of 17 was rightly

applied by the Tribunal. That being so, `2,01,960/- (11880 x 17)

or say `2,02,000/- is assessed as loss of dependency of the

claimants/ appellants.

4. The compensation awarded on other counts is also seen to

be unjust and extremely on lower side. Having regard to the facts

and circumstances of the present case, a sum of `10,000/- is

assessed to be compensation on account of funeral expenses;

`10,000/- towards loss of consortium; `25,000/- towards loss of

estate and `50,000/- towards loss of love and affection of the

appellants. In this way, the total compensation payable to the

appellants/claimants comes out to be `2,97,000/-. Therefore, the

appellants/ claimants would be entitled to enhanced

compensation of `1,62,600/- which respondent no.3/ Insurance

company being the insurer shall pay to the appellants/ claimants

within 30 days from passing of this order and thereafter with

interest @ 7.5% per annum till the date of payment. Since the

appellant no.2 Ms. Sunita has been married, the enhanced

compensation shall be paid in equal proportion to appellants Smt.

Usha Rani, Anuj and Nitin. The share of Anuj and Nitin shall

remain deposited in fixed deposits in any nationalized bank in

their names for the period till they attain the age of majority.

5. The appeal stands disposed accordingly.

M.L. MEHTA (JUDGE) September 30, 2011 rd

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter