Delhi High Court
Nirmal Rani vs Harish Kumar on 24 April, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 24th April, 2012
+ FAO No.554/2001
NIRMAL RANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Nitinjay Chaudhary with Mr.
Attray Singh, Advocates
versus
HARISH KUMAR ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `1,05,000/-
awarded for the death of Ram Prakash, who died in an accident
which occurred on the night of 05-06.10.1991. The deceased
was aged 38 years at the time of accident. He left behind his
widow, two daughters and a son as his legal heirs.
2. During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the
Claims Tribunal), it was claimed that deceased used to work as
a street vendor and as a loader and was earning about `3,000/-
per month.
3. PW-2 Raj Kumar testified that deceased used to do the work of
loading and would earn between `1000-1500/- per month. The
Claims Tribunal did not believe this income in the absence of
any cogent evidence. Therefore, it took help of the minimum
wages of a worker fixed under the Minimum Wages Act,
deducted one third towards personal and living expenses and
applied a multiplier of 13 to compute the loss of dependency as
` 93,000/-. The Claims Tribunal further awarded a sum of `
2,000/- towards funeral expenses, `10,000/- towards Love and
Affection to award an over all compensation of `1,05,000/-.
4. It is important to note that the cheque towards premium was
dishonoured. The intimation of the dishonour of the cheque
was, however, not given to the owner of the vehicle by the time
of accident. The Claims Tribunal, therefore, while making the
United India Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation
granted it the right to recover the amount of compensation paid
from the insured.
5. It may be noted that the Respondent No.3 Insurance Company
aggrieved by the fastening of the liability against it filed FAO
No.548/2001 which was dismissed by this Court by an order
dated 19.03.2007. In this view of matter, the finding on
negligence has become final between the parties.
6. Although PW-1, the deceased's widow claimed the deceased's
income to be `3,000/- per month, which was stated to be `
1,000/- -1,500/- per month by PW-2. In the absence of any
reliable evidence, the Claims Tribunal rightly took the
minimum wages as the deceased's income. Since the number of
dependents were four and the age of deceased was 38 years, the
deduction towards personal and living expenses shall be one-
fourth and the appropriate multiplier would be '15' in view of
the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121;
applying the same loss of dependency comes to `1,20,285/-
(891/-x 12 x 3/4 x15).
7. No compensation has been awarded towards Loss to Estate and
Loss of Consortium. The compensation towards Loss of Love
and Affection is also on the lower side. Considering that the
accident took place in the year 1991, I would enhance the
compensation award towards Loss of Love and Affection from
`10,000/- to `25,000/- and compensation towards funeral
expenses from `2,000/- to `5,000/-. I further award a sum of
`5,000/- towards Loss of Consortium and `5,000/- towards
Loss to Estate.
8. The overall compensation is thus enhanced from ` 1,05,000/- to
` 1,60,285/-
9. The enhanced compensation of `55,285/- shall carry interest @
9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of the
impugned judgment i.e. 09.08.2001. The enhanced
compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from
10.08.2001 till its deposit with the UCO Bank, Delhi High
Court Branch, New Delhi.
10. Since, this accident took place about 21 years back and all the
three children have become major, out of the enhanced
compensation, a compensation of `5,000/- each along with
proportionate interest shall be payable to Appellants No.2 to 4;
rest of the amount along with proportionate interest shall be
payable to the Appellant No.1.
11. Respondent No.3 United India Insurance Company is directed
to deposit the enhanced amount in the name of the Appellants
within six weeks with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court and proof
regarding the deposit shall be filed with the Registrar General of
this Court with an intimation to the Counsel for the Appellant.
12. Since this accident, as stated above occurred about 21 years
back, the enhanced amount of compensation shall be released to
the Appellants forthwith on deposit.
13. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 24, 2012
neelam
