Delhi High Court
Kishan Lal & Ors. vs Abdul Rehman & Ors. on 16 August, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 25th July, 2012
Pronounced on: 16th August, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 321/2004
KISHAN LAL & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate
versus
ABDUL REHMAN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Garima Prasad with
Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocates
+ MAC. APP. 322/2004
GURCHARAN ARORA & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate
versus
ABDUL REHMAN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Garima Prasad with
Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocates
+ MAC. APP. 323/2004
KULVINDER KAUR & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate
versus
ABDUL REHMAN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Garima Prasad with
Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocates
MAC APP Nos.321/2004, 322/2004/, 323/2004, 324/2004 & 325/2004 Page 1 of 13
+ MAC. APP. 324/2004
PARVINDER SINGH & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate
versus
ABDUL REHMAN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Garima Prasad with
Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocates
WITH
+ MAC. APP. 325/2004
IQBAL SINGH & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate
versus
ABDUL REHMAN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Garima Prasad with
Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. These five Appeals (MAC.APP.321/2004, MAC.
APP.322/2004, MAC.APP.323/2004, MAC. APP.324/2004 and
MAC. APP.325/2004) for enhancement of compensation arise
out of a judgment dated 31.03.2004 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) whereby a
compensation of Rs.2,63,064/-, Rs.2,63,064/-, Rs.2,16,552/-,
Rs.3,12,832/- and Rs.4,35,000/- respectively was granted for the
death of Dulari, Sushma Rani Arora, Sardar Mohan Singh,
Pushpa @ Pushpender Kaur and Kaushalya Devi respectively.
MAC. Appeals No.180/2005, 187/2005, 192/2005, 267/2005
and 182/2005 were preferred by the Respondent U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation(UPSRTC) challenging the
judgment on the ground that negligence on the part of the driver
was not proved and that the compensation awarded was
exorbitant and excessive. All the Appeals were dismissed by a
common judgment dated 23.03.2007 passed by a Learned
Single Judge of this Court. It is stated by the learned counsel
for the Respondent that an Special Leave Petition (SLP)
preferred against the judgment dated 23.03.2007 was dismissed
by the Supreme Court.
2. Admittedly, all these Appeals were preferred before disposal of
the Appeals by UPSRTC. It would have been appropriate to
decide these Appeals along with the Appeals filed by UPSRTC.
It appears that the pendency of these Appeals was not brought
to the notice of the Learned Single Judge. Nonetheless, it is my
obligation now to dispose of the Appeals.
3. Since Appeals filed by the UPSRTC have been dismissed, the
finding on negligence has attained finality.
4. Before coming to the respective contentions of the parties, it
would be appropriate to extract the age of the deceased, the
multiplier adopted, number of dependents, deductions made etc.
in each of the Appeal.
M Suit Name Age of Multipl Deducti Depende Award
AC No. of deceas ier on nts (in
AP deceas ed Rs.)
P. ed
321 115/9 Dulari 37 16 1/3 Husband, 26306
/04 9 2 children 4/-
322 116/9 Sushm 45 13 1/3 5 26306
/04 9 a Rani Children 4/-
323 120/9 Sardar 49 13 1/3 Wife, 2 21655
/04 9 Mohan children, 2/-
Singh mother
324 412/0 Pushpa 49 13 1/3 3 31283
/04 0 Children 2/-
325 117/9 Kausha 57 8 1/2 3 43500
/04 9 lya Children 0/-
Devi
5. During the hearing of the Appeals, following contentions are
raised on behalf of the Appellants:
(i) While awarding loss of dependency, future prospects
of the deceased were not taken into consideration.
(ii) Deceased Dulari,Sushma Rani, Pushpa @
Pushpender Kaur and Kaushalya Devi were also
rendering household services. No compensation was
awarded towards loss of gratuitous services to the
legal representatives.
(iii) Considering the number of dependents, deduction
made towards personal and living expenses was on
higher side.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent (UPSRTC)
argues that the compensation in these cases was awarded in the
year 2004 as per the law applicable at the relevant time which
was just and reasonable. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 was
pronounced only on 15.04.2009; it would not be applicable to
these cases to award compensation.
7. It is true that Sarla Verma was decided on 15.04.2009, yet it
was not made applicable prospectively. Any judgment of the
Supreme Court would be binding on all the Courts on the day
the matter is heard. Thus, the contentions raised on behalf of
the UPSRTC is without any substance. The Appeals shall be
decided as per the law prevalent on the date of the decision.
MAC. APP. 321/2004
8. This Appeal relates to the death of Dulari. As per the
postmortem report, she was aged 38 years. During inquiry
before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that the deceased
was earning Rs.4,000/- per month by pursuing the job of
stitching and knitting. The Appellants who are the husband and
two sons of the deceased were unable to prove the deceased's
occupation and her income by any cogent evidence. The
Claims Tribunal took minimum wages of an unskilled worker,
deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and applied
a multiplier of 16 to compute the loss of dependency. In the
Claim Petition, it was not pleaded that the deceased was
carrying any household work. No evidence was led in this
behalf. Thus, the Appellants are not entitled to any
compensation on account of alleged loss of gratuitous
household services rendered by the deceased. They are entitled
to compensation only on the basis of minimum wages of an
unskilled worker, i.e. Rs.1937/-.
9. In Rakhi v. Satish Kumar & Ors., (MAC APP. 390/2011), this
Court noticed the Supreme Court judgments in General
Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation,
Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC
176; Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179; Bijoy
Kumar Dugar v. Bidya Dhar Dutta & Ors, (2006) 3 SCC 242
and relying on Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company
Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559 it was held that even in the
absence of any evidence with regard to future prospects an
addition of 30% in the income can be provided for in case of
persons getting fixed salary or self employed persons, to
compute the loss of dependency. Applying Santosh Devi and
Sarla Verma, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,02,172/-(
Rs.1937 + 30% x 2/3 x 12 x 15). I would make a provision of
`15,000 towards loss of love and affection, Rs.5,000/- each
towards loss of consortium , loss to estate and funeral expenses.
10. The overall compensation thus comes to Rs.3,32,172/-.
11. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.69,108/-. The enhanced
compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of the filing of the Petition till its payment. The enhanced
compensation along with interest which shall be shared equally
amongst the three Appellants.
12. The Respondent (UPSRTC) is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation along with interest with the Claims Tribunal
within six weeks and shall be released to the Appellants on
deposit.
13. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
14. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
MAC. APP. 322/2004
15. This Appeal relates to the death of Sushma Rani who was aged
50 years as per the post mortem report. It was claimed that she
was working as a Technical Assistant in Sharma Nursing Home
and was getting a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. No cogent
evidence was produced with regard to the deceased's
employment, her qualifications or income. She had five
dependents including two married daughters and two unmarried
daughters. PW3's testimony that she was rendering household
services was not challenged in the cross-examination. The
Claims Tribunal awarded her the compensation on the basis of
minimum wages of a matriculate which was not permissible in
the absence of any evidence with regard to the deceased's
educational qualifications. Thus, the loss of dependency was to
be computed on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled
worker, which comes to Rs.2,61,882/-( Rs.1937 + 30% x 2/3 x
12 x 13).
16. Since it has been accepted that the deceased was gainfully
employed, a lumpsum compensation of Rs.25,000/- is granted
towards loss of gratuitous services rendered as a housewife. In
addition, the Appellants are granted a sum of Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of love and affection, Rs.5,000/- each towards loss
to estate and funeral expenses.
17. The overall compensation thus comes to Rs.3,11,882/-.
18. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.48,818/-. The enhanced
compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of the filing of the Petition till its payment. The enhanced
compensation along with interest shall be shared equally
amongst the Appellants.
19. The Respondent (UPSRTC) is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation along with interest with the Claims Tribunal
within six weeks and which shall be released to the Appellants
on deposit.
20. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
21. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
MAC.APP.323/2004
22. This Appeal relates to the death of Sardar Mohan Singh.
23. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that
the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as a
transporter. The deceased was not paying any Income Tax.
Any income beyond Rs.50,000/- was taxable in the A.Y. 1999-
2000. Apart from the oral statement of the deceased's wife,
there was no evidence with regard to the deceased's income or
his profession/business. The Claims Tribunal, therefore,
accepted the deceased's income to be Rs.1937/- per month,
deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and applied
a multiplier of 13.
24. The deceased was survived by a widow, a son, a daughter and a
widowed mother. In the cross-examination, PW7 Kulvinder
Kaur admitted that the deceased's son was working and earning.
The number of dependents were, therefore, three. Since the
deceased's age was accepted as 49 years, the Appellants are
entitled to an addition of 30% on account of inflation as stated
earlier. The loss of dependency thus comes to Rs.2,61,882/-(
Rs.1937 + 30% x 2/3 x 12 x 13). In addition, the Appellants
would be entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love
and affection, Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of consortium, loss
to estate and funeral expenses.
25. The overall compensation comes to Rs.2,91,882/-.
26. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.75,330/- in the
compensation awarded. The enhanced compensation shall
carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of
the Petition till its payment. The enhanced compensation shall
enure for the benefit of the deceased's widow and widowed
mother i.e. Appellant s No.1 and 4 and shall be equally shared
by them.
27. The Respondent (UPSRTC) is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation along with interest with the Claims Tribunal
within six weeks and shall be released to the Appellants on
deposit.
28. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
29. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
MAC.APP.324/2004
30. This Appeal relates to the death of Pushpa @ Pushpender Kaur.
31. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that
the deceased was aged 49 years and was earning Rs.3,000/- per
month by doing private tuition. The deceased was survived by
one son and two daughters. The Claims Tribunal in the absence
of any cogent evidence with regard to the deceased's
employment and income, took her income as per the minimum
wages of an unskilled worker. The Claims Tribunal awarded
Rs.2,01,552/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.15,000/- towards
loss of love and affection and funeral expenses and Rs.96,280/-
as expenditure on medical treatment.
32. No evidence was led that the deceased was doing any household
work. In view of the reasons stated earlier while dealing with
MAC. APP. 321/2004, the loss of dependency comes to
Rs.2,61,882/-( Rs.1937/- + 30% x 12 x 2/3 x 13). The
Appellants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love
and affection and Rs.5,000/- each towards loss to estate and
funeral expenses. The award of compensation of Rs.96,280/-
towards medical treatment is maintained.
33. The overall compensation comes to Rs. 3,83,162/-.
34. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.70,330/-. The enhanced
compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of the filing of the Petition till its payment. The enhanced
compensation along with interest shall be shared equally
amongst the Appellants.
35. The Respondent (UPSRTC) is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation along with interest with the Claims Tribunal
within six weeks and shall be released to the Appellants on
deposit.
36. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
37. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
MAC. APP. 325/2004
38. This Appeal relates to the death of Kaushalya Devi who was
aged 57 years and was in business. She was survived by two
sons and one daughter. Evidence was produced to show that
they were between 25 to 39 years. All were married and settled
in their lives.
39. The Claims Tribunal deducted 50% towards personal and living
expenses and applied a multiplier of 8 to compute the loss of
dependency as Rs.4,20,000/-. As per the Division Bench
judgment of Karnataka High Court in A. Manavalagan v. A.
Krishnamurthy & Ors., 2005 ACJ 1992 and by a learned Single
Judge in Keith Rowe v. Prashant Sagar & Ors., (MAC APP.
No.601/2007) decided on 15.01.2001, the Appellants were
really entitled to loss to estate and not any compensation
towards loss of dependency. The loss to estate in such
circumstances would be just 1/3rd of the deceased's income
which comes to Rs.3,15,000/-( Rs.1,05,000/- x 1/3 x 9). On
addition of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection and
Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, the overall compensation
thus comes to Rs.3,30,000/-. Thus, there is no case for
enhancement of compensation.
40. The Appeal is dismissed.
41. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
AUGUST 16, 2012
pst
