Delhi High Court
Ramesh Chawla & Ors. vs Varun Grover & Ors. on 6 December, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$ 12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 6th December, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 170/2012
RAMESH CHAWLA & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Vineet Hans with Mr. A.K. Gupta,
Advocates.
Versus
VARUN GROVER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate for
the Respondent No.3 Insurance
Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `2,78,000/- awarded
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) for the
death of Ranjana Chawla who was carrying on a business in the name and
style of Ankur Fabrics.
2. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver, owner or the insurer; the
finding on negligence has attained finality.
3. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that deceased
Ranjana Chawla was in business and was having an income of
`1,80,000/- per annum. The deceased was survived by her husband, a
daughter and a son. It was also established that Appellant No.2,
deceased's daughter was aged about 23 years and Appellant No.3, the son
was aged 22 years at the time of accident. During inquiry, it also came
on record that Appellant No.2 got married after two years of the
deceased's death and Appellant No.3 got an employment in Hotel Taj
after about six months of the deceased's death. In the circumstances, the
Claims Tribunal awarded compensation for loss of dependency to
Appellant No.2 for two years and for Appellant No.3 for six months. It
further held that the First Appellant was not dependent and only awarded
compensation on non-pecuniary damages.
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the Claims
Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation in this manner.
Since the Appellants No.2 and 3 were fully dependent on the deceased at
the time of the her death, full compensation as per appropriate multiplier
ought to have been awarded. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the Respondent urges that the compensation awarded is just and
reasonable.
5. It is not in dispute that both Appellants No.2 and 3 were dependent on
their deceased's mother. It has to be borne in mind that even if the young
children get employment, they remain dependent on their parents for
most of their needs. Appellant No.2 started getting a salary of `10,000/-
per month after about 7-8 months of the deceased's death. That was not a
ground to award compensation for loss of dependency only for 7-8
months. However, keeping in view the fact that the husband of the
deceased was also carrying on business in the name of Aditi Fabrics.
Deduction towards personal and living expenses can be taken as 1/2
instead of 1/3rd. The loss of dependency thus comes to `15,08,000/-
(`1,80,000/- + 30% x - 2000/- x 1/2 x 13).
6. The Appellants would be further entitled to a sum of `25,000/- towards
loss of love and affection, `10,000/- each towards funeral expenses, loss
to estate and loss of consortium.
7. Thus, the compensation is enhanced from `2,78,000/- to `15,63,000/-.
The enhanced compensation of `12,85,000/- shall carry interest @ 7.5%
per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment. The
enhanced compensation shall be shared equally amongst the three
Appellants. 75% of the compensation shall be held in fixed deposit in a
national bank for a period of five years, rest 25% shall be released on
deposit. The Appellants shall be entitled to quarterly interest on the
amount held in fixed deposit.
8. The Respondent No.3 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. is
directed to deposit the enhanced amount of `12,85,000/- along with
interest with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks.
9. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
10. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 06, 2012
pst
