Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 4911 Del
Judgement Date : 30 September, 2011
* 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
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!