Delhi High Court
Munna Lal Jain & Anr. vs Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors on 31 August, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 31st August, 2012
+ MAC APP. 687/2011
MUNNA LAL JAIN & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Anuj Jain, Adv.
versus
VIPIN KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.K.Ray, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `6,59,000/- awarded
in favour of the Appellants for the death of Rahul Jain, a bachelor who
died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 12.07.2008.
2. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that on
12.07.2008 at about 5:00 A.M. deceased Rahul Jain along with his friend
was returning from Gurgaon to his residence and had reached near village
Bhadola, Delhi. The two wheeler was struck by a truck No.RJ-14-2G-
5065, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The
deceased was removed to Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital where he was
declared brought dead.
3. The Appellants set up a case that the deceased was a self employed
person working as a 'Jain Pandit'. He had a large clientele and was
earning `15,000/- per month. It was stated that he possessed two mobile
phones No. 9899570415 and 9311062282; was contributing to three Life
Insurance Policies; maintaining two bank accounts which show that a
sum of about `10,000/- was being deposited in the bank accounts.
4. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident
was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No.RJ-14-
2G-5065 by the First Respondent. The deceased's income was accepted
as `8,000/- per month. Since the deceased was a bachelor, the Claims
Tribunal made deduction of 50% towards the deceased's personal and
living expenses, applied the multiplier of '13' and awarded a sum of
`6,24,000/- towards the loss of dependency. A sum of `20,000/- was
awarded towards loss of love and affection and `10,000/- towards loss to
estate and `5,000/- towards funeral expenses.
5. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellants:-
(i) The Appellants produced sufficient evidence to prove that the
deceased had a handsome income. The Appellants' case that the
deceased was earning `15,000/- per month should have been
accepted.
(ii) No addition was made towards future prospects in spite of the fact
that the deceased was a young boy, aged 30 years.
6. I have before me the Trial Court Record. The First Appellant testified that
his deceased son (Satender Kumar Jain) was self employed as a
"Pandit". He used to earn `15,000/- per month. He used to perform
religious rituals like „Mandir Shilanyas‟, Vedi Pratistha, Moorti (Idol)
Pran Pratistha, „Panch Kalyanak‟, „Vidhans‟, „Puja & Path‟ etc. in Jain
temples in Delhi and NCR. His son used to get 10-15 such assignments
every month and would get a minimum of `1100/- per assignment. He
would get `3,300/- for some of the assignments. He proved deceased's
mobile bills Ex.PW-1/22 (collectively) to show that his monthly
expenditure of each of the mobile phones was `7,00/- to `8,00/- per
month. The First Appellant proved the pass book of the Savings Account
No.27200100004882 of Bank of Baroda, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi and a
Savings Bank Account No.10934 of Allahabad Bank, Sagar, Madhya
Pradesh. He also proved three LIC policies Ex.PW-1/22 (collectively) to
show that he used to pay a premium of `232/- quarterly, `960/- yearly
and `1656/- quarterly.
7. The Appellants also produced PW-4 Kapil Jain, PW-5 Jinesh Jain and
PW-6 Ashok Kumar Jain to prove that religious functions were
performed at their places by the deceased. It was also proved that the
deceased purchased a motor cycle for `47,500/- vide bill Ex.PW-1/2.
8. The Claims Tribunal took into consideration all this evidence and
assessed the deceased's income to be `8,000/- per month. Any income
beyond `1,50,000/- was subject to income tax in the Assessment Year
2009-10. Although, the deceased had a PAN card yet, no evidence was
produced that the deceased was paying any income tax. At the same time
from the oral and documentary evidence, it is established that the
deceased Satender Kumar Jain had sufficient income to maintain two
mobile phones, to purchase a motor cycle and to maintain it and to have
three insurance policies whose annual premium was over `15,000/- per
annum. He was having an expenditure of `14,00/- to `15,00/- per month
on the mobile phones. Thus, an income of `8,000/- taken by the Claims
Tribunal appears to be on the lower side. Keeping in view the above
stated facts, I would take his income to be `12,000/- per month.
9. In the absence of any evidence with regard to the future prospects, the
Appellants are entitled to an increase of 30% towards inflation on the
basis of judgment of the Supreme Court in Santosh Devi v. National
Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559, relied on and
discussed by this Court in Rakhi v. Satish Kumar & Ors. (MAC. APP.
390/2011) decided on 16.07.2012.
10. The loss of dependency thus comes to `12,16,800/- (`12,000/- + 30% x
1/2 x 12 x 13).
11. I would further make an award of `25,000/- towards loss of love and
affection and `10,000/- each towards loss to estate and funeral expenses.
12. No other contention has been raised.
13. The overall compensation comes to `12,61,800/-. Thus, there is
enhancement of `6,02,800/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment.
14. Respondent No.3 United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to
deposit the enhanced amount along with interest with UCO Bank, Delhi
High Court, New Delhi within six weeks.
15. 25% of the enhanced compensation shall be payable to the First
Appellant. Rest 75% shall go to the second Appellant (the deceased's
mother).
16. 80% of the enhanced compensation shall be held in fixed deposit for a
period of two years, four years, six years and eight years. Rest 20% shall
be disbursed on deposit.
17. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
18. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
AUGUST 31, 2012
vk
