Mahrunisha & Ors vs Mohd Naseem Haider & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 1369 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                  Date of decision: 28th February, 2012

+       MAC.APP. 360/2011


        MAHRUNISHA & ORS                      ..... Appellant
                    Through:           Mr.O.P.Mannie, Advocate

                    versus

        MOHD NASEEM HAIDER & ORS        ..... Respondent
                    Through: Mr.S.L.Gupta, Advocate for R-
                             3.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation of Rs.5,47,460/- awarded for the death of Gulam Haider, who was aged 49 years and died in a motor accident which occurred on 24.09.2009. There is no Appeal by the driver, insured and insurer; thus I am not to go into the question of negligence.

2. The Claims Tribunal in the absence of any documentary evidence did not rely upon the affidavit of Mehrunisa, the deceased's wife who claimed the deceased's income to be Rs.8,000/- per month. The Tribunal took the minimum wages of skilled worker i.e. Rs.4377/- deducted 25% towards personal expenses as the number of dependants was 5 and applied

multiplier of '13' as per the age of the deceased.

3. It is true that the Appellants were unable to place on record any proof with regard to the deceased employment and his actual income. The Appellant No.1 was a resident of Bihar. The deceased's driving licence Ex.PW-1/3 to drive MMV/HMV was proved on record. The accident took place while the deceased was driving the truck with another truck. In the circumstances, it is established that the deceased was working as a truck driver. The salary of a truck driver, a bus driver, a motor car driver cannot be the same although all of them are skilled worker. In my view, salary of a truck driver can be assumed to be at Rs.250/- per day i.e. Rs.7500/- per month. On applying the principle of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, the loss of dependency come to Rs.8,77,500/- (7500x12x13x3/4).

4. No amount of compensation can measure loss of love and affection. The trends of the superior courts including the Supreme Court is to award a compensation of Rs.25,000/- on account of loss of Love and Affection. (Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627). I would also award a sum of Rs.25,000/- under this head. On further addition of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of Consortium, Rs.5000/- towards Funeral Expenses and Rs.5000/- towards Loss of Estate as awarded by the Tribunal the compensation is enhanced from Rs.5,47,460/- to Rs. 9,22,500/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5 % per annum as awarded by the Claims Tribunal from the date of the filing of the petition till date of the deposit in this Court.

5. The Respondent No.3 Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest within 30 days with Registrar General

of this Court. 50% of the enhanced compensation shall be payable to the Appellant No.1, rest shall be equally amongst other Appellants.

6. The enhanced compensation payable to the Appellant No.1 shall be held in Fixed Deposit for a period of 1year, 2 years, 3 years and 4 years respectively in equal sum. The compensation payable to Appellant No. 2 to 5 shall be held in Fixed Deposit in the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, till they attain the age of 21 years.

7. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE FEBRUARY 28, 2012 mr