Delhi High Court
Om Prakash & Anr vs Jasbir Singh & Ors on 3 August, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 3rd August, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.180/2008
OM PRAKASH & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Vikas Mahajan with
Mr. Vishal Mahajan, Advocates
Versus
JASBIR SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Advocate
for the Respondent No.2.
Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sood, Advocate
for the Respondent No.3.
+ MAC. APP. No.844/2012
GURVINDER SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sood
Versus
OM PRAKASH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikas Mahajan with
Mr. Vishal Mahajan, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. These two Appeals (MAC. APP. 180/2008 and MAC.
APP.844/2012) arise out of a common judgment dated 09.02.2005
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims
Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- was awarded
for the death of a minor child aged 15 years and eight months at
the time of the accident which occurred on 31.08.1995.
2. It the Claim Petition, it was stated that the deceased was aged 17
years and was earning Rs.2,500/- to 3,000/- per month. The age of
the deceased's child was claimed to be 17 years. But his date of
birth was stated as 31.12.1979. Thus, he was aged only 15 years
and eight months at the time of the accident. The Claims Tribunal
while computing the loss of dependency relied on Khazan Singh &
Anr. v. Basheer Ahmed & Ors, 2002 VIII AD(Delhi) 576 and
Putamma v. D.V. Krishnappa, 2000 ACJ 103. Paras 17 and 18 of
the judgment are extracted hereunder:
"17. As the deceased was 15 years and 8 months of
age at the time of the accident, I place my reliance on
the Judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court
reported as Khazan Singh & Anr. v. Basheer Ahmed
& Ors, 2002 VIII AD(Delhi) 576 relying upon the
Judgment of Putamma v. D.V. Krishnappa, 2000 ACJ
103 granted a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in the case of a 14
years old child and held that:
"In view of uncertainties abound, neither their
income at the time of death nor the prospects of
the future increase in their income nor chances
of advancement of their career are capable of
proper determination on estimated basis. The
reason is that at such an early age, the
uncertainties in regard to their academic
pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter
advancement in life are so many that nothing
can be assumed with reasonable certainty.
Therefore, neither the income of a deceased
child is capable of assessment on estimated
basis nor the financial loss suffered by his
parents is capable of mathematical
computation.
However, this does not mean that in the case of
the death of a young child, the parents are to be
left high and dry. Every parent has reasonable
expectations of financial and moral support
from his child and in due course normally he
gets it also and as such, compensation has to be
awarded to the parents towards the loss of
companionship, mental agony and loss of
expectations of financial and moral support."
18. In view of the judgment, I award a consolidated
sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to the petitioners on account of
death of Rajinder Kumar. This amount includes the
amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded to the petitioners vide
interim order dated 10.12.2003. Thus, the petitioners
are held entitled to receive the net amount of
Rs.1,30,000/-, which the respondents are jointly and
severally liable to pay to the petitioners."
3. This Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Farzana &
Ors. MAC APP. 13/2007 decided on 14th July, 2009 relied on
Manju Devi v. Musafir Paswan, VII (2005) SLT 257, R.K. Malik &
Ors. v. Kiran Pal & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 2506 and opined that in
case of death of a child a notional income of ` 15,000/- is to be
taken and applying the multiplier of 15 the loss of dependency was
held to be ` 2,25,000/-. The Claimants were further held to be
entitled for a sum of ` 75,000/- towards future prospects and `
75,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. The present case is
squarely covered by the judgment in National Insurance Company
Limited v. Farzana & Ors.
4. Similarly, in a later judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of
this Court in Ami Chand & Ors. v. Jai Prakash & Ors., 2011 IX
AD(Delhi) 111 relying upon the judgments in R.K. Malik v. Kiran
Pal (2009) 14 SCC 1 and Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (2001) 8
SCC 197 granted a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- towards loss of
dependency, Rs.75,000/- towards future prospects and Rs.75,000/-
towards non pecuniary damages.
5. I would follow the same and hold that the Appellants are entitled to
an overall compensation of Rs.3,75,000/-.
6. The plea of the Cross-Objectionist Gurvinder Singh, owner of the
offending vehicle (MAC. APP. 844/2012) is that he has been
fastened with the liability to pay the interest from 09.01.1997 to
15.09.2003 on the ground that the Insurance Company was
impleaded on 16.09.2003.
7. I have before me the record of the Trial Court. The record reveals
that the Appellants themselves were to be blamed for the delay in
impleadment of the Insurance Company. A perusal of the Trial
Court record shows that the Appellants impleaded Master Goods
Carrier as the owner and the Petition was dismissed against him
by the Claims Tribunal by an order dated 09.07.1999. The order
dated 09.04.2000 and 15.11.2000 show that the Appellants were
burdened with cost for not taking steps for service of the
Respondents. It was after a great delay that on 05.09.2002
Gurvinder Singh (Cross-Objectionist) was impleaded as owner of
the offending vehicle. Nothing has been placed on record that the
Cross-Objectionist had any knowledge of the accident or was
aware of the proceedings pending before the Claims Tribunal. In
this view of the matter, Gurvinder Singh, owner of the vehicle
should not have been fastened with the liability to pay the interest
from the date of filing of the Petition. The owner immediately
disclosed the insurance particulars. The Insurance Company is,
therefore, liable to indemnify the insured.
8. The Cross-Objections are also allowed and it is held that the
Appellants are entitled to interest on the award amount @ 9% per
annum only from 05.09.2002, the date the owner was impleaded,
till the date of the judgment.
9. There was a delay of more than two years in filing the Appeal.
The Appellants would be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum
on the enhanced amount of compensation, that is, Rs.1,95,000/-
from the date of the Appeal till the date of payment. The
enhanced amount along with interest shall be deposited with the
Claims Tribunal within 30 days and shall be shared equally
between the Appellants. 50% of the enhanced amount shall be
held in Fixed Deposit for a period of two years. Rest of the
amount shall be released on deposit.
10. Both the Appeals are disposed of in above terms.
11. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
AUGUST 03, 2012
pst
