Delhi High Court
Jassu Kanwar vs Simbhu Dayal & Ors. on 4 December, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 4th December, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 587/2012
JASSU KANWAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, Adv.
versus
SIMBHU DAYAL & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through Mr. Amit Gaur, 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 `6,65,140/- awarded
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour
of the Appellant for the death of Devraj, a bachelor who died in a motor
vehicle accident which occurred on 13.12.2007.
2. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver, owner or the Insurance
Company, the finding on negligence has attained finality.
3. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that the
deceased was working as a Service Engineer with Infra-Tech Solutions,
4-5, WZ-13D/3, Asalat Pur, Janakpuri, New Delhi and was earning
`12,000/- per month including `7,000/- from M/s. Infra-Tech Solutions
and remaining from other sources.
4. The Appellant examined PW-3 Puneet Narula, Proprietor of M/s. Infra-
Tech Solutions to prove the deceased's income. The Claims Tribunal,
however, observed that there were some overwritings in the register and,
therefore, declined to believe the salary certificate or PW-3's testimony.
The Claims Tribunal, therefore, took the minimum wages of a
Matriculate to compute the loss of dependency.
5. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:-
(i) The salary certificate Ex.PW-3/2 was duly proved by the deceased
employer. It should have been taken into consideration to compute
the loss of dependency.
(ii) Deduction of 50% towards personal and living expenses was on the
higher side.
(iii) The Claims Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 15 as per the age of
the deceased's mother (37 years). The multiplier should have been
18 as per the age of the deceased.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent Insurance
Company supports the award urging that the salary certificate was rightly
discarded by the Claims Tribunal on account of the discrepancies found
in the Attendance register. It is urged that in case of a bachelor,
deduction towards personal and living expenses is 50%, which was
rightly adopted by the Claims Tribunal. It is stated that the multiplier has
to be as per the age of the deceased or the Claimant whichever is higher.
INCOME
7. I have before me the Trial Court record. PW-3 Puneet Narula, Proprietor
of M/s. Infra-Tech Solutions produced the Attendance register and salary
record of deceased Devraj. He testified that the deceased was employed
in the month of August 2007 and he continued to work with him till his
death. He stated that he was the proprietor of the earlier said firm. The
Claims Tribunal, however, noticed some discrepancies in the attendance-
salary register in as much as some of the entries have been made in
pencil. The original register is available on the Trial Court record. It is
true that in some of the entries there are some corrections/overwriting.
No explanation with regard to this overwriting was sought from PW-3.
No suggestion was given to him that deceased Devraj was not his
employee.
8. It is important to note that this Salary-cum-Attendance register is from
June, 2007 and Devraj joined this firm only in August, 2007. This very
register continued till January, 2010. The overwriting with respect to the
entry relevant to the deceased Devraj is with regard to the figure 6500/-
or 7,000/-. Thus, at the most the deceased's salary should have been
taken as `6500/-.
9. As far as deduction towards personal and living expenses is concerned,
the law is well settled that in case of a bachelor the deduction towards
personal and living expenses is to be 50% unless he has responsibility of
his younger siblings, that is, either his father is not alive or he is unable to
do any work. In the instant case, it was not such a case where the
deceased had the responsibility of his siblings.
10. With regard to the selection of multiplier also, the law is well settled that
the multiplier has to be as per the age of the deceased or the Claimant
whichever is higher. (U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v.
Trilok Chandra & Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 362; New India Assurance
Company Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 1; National
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shyam Singh & Ors., (2011) 7 SCC 65,
decided on 04.07.2011; Ramesh Singh & Anr. v. Satbir Singh & Anr.,
(2008) 2 SCC 667).
11. There was no evidence with regard to deceased's bright future prospects.
The Appellant would not be entitled to an addition of 50%. Rather, she
would be entitled to an addition of 30% towards inflation on the basis of
the report of the Supreme Court in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance
Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559).
12. In view of the above, the loss of dependency comes to `7,60,500/-
(6500/- + 30% x 1/2 x 12 x 15).
13. The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of `1,00,000/- towards loss
of love and affection. Loss of love and affection can never be measured in
terms of money. Thus, uniformity has to be adopted by the Courts while
granting non-pecuniary damages. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma v.
Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta v.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627 granted only `
25,000/- (in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and
affection. Thus, I would reduce the compensation under this head to `
25,000/- only.
14. The Appellant is further entitled to a sum of `10,000/- each towards
funeral expenses and loss to estate.
15. The overall compensation is thus comes to `8,05,500/-.
16. The enhanced compensation off `1,40,360/- shall carry interest @ 7.5%
per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment.
17. The enhanced compensation along with interest shall be deposited with
the Claims Tribunal within six weeks.
18. Seventy five percent of the enhanced compensation shall be held in fixed
deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of five years and ten years
in equal proportion on which the Appellant would be entitled to quarterly
interest. Rest 25% shall be released on deposit.
19. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
20. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 04, 2012
vk
