Delhi High Court
Ram Chander & Anr. vs Chakardhari & Ors on 29 February, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 20th January, 2012
Pronounced on: 29th February, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.785/2011
RAM CHANDER & ANR. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. B.K. Sharma, Advocate
Versus
CHAKARDHARI & ORS .... Respondents
Through: Mr. R.C. Mahajan, Advocate
for the Respondent No.3
Insurance Company
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `3,94,000/-
awarded for the death of Ravinder who was aged 21 years and
was a driver by profession.
2. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that
the deceased was a matriculate, the accident was caused on
account of rash and negligent driving of Trailer bearing
registration No.HR-38K-6535 and that the deceased was a
driver by profession in a company called Golden Earth Movers.
3. By the impugned judgment, the Claims Tribunal found that the
accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver
of the Trailer bearing registration No.HR-38K-6535. The
Claims Tribunal did not rely on the salary certificate Ex.PW2/2
and computed the loss of dependency on the minimum wages
of a skilled worker.
4. Since no Cross-Appeal or Appeal has been filed by the Trailer's
driver or the Insurance Company, the finding on the aspect of
deceased's death due to negligence of the driver of the Trailer
has become final.
5. The learned counsel for the Appellant argues that apart from
other evidence, the Appellants filed an affidavit of Praveen
Dabas, the deceased's employer as Ex.PW2/A. He also entered
the witness box as PW2. In his affidavit, the witness testified
that the deceased was getting a salary of `10,000/- per month.
He also proved the salary certificate Ex.PW2/2. In cross-
examination, the witness denied the suggestion that the
deceased was not employed by him. He denied that the
accident took place on account of the deceased's negligence.
No question was asked from this witness on the quantum of
salary or the certificate Ex.PW2/2.
6. The Claims Tribunal, in my opinion, erred in rejecting the
certificate Ex.PW2/2 and PW2's testimony with regard to the
deceased's income. I would accept the deceased's income to
be `10,000/- per month and would compute the loss of
dependency as `5,40,000/- (`10000 ÷ 2 X 12 X 9).
7. The loss of love and affection cannot be measured in terms of
money. 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. I would follow the same. The
compensation under the head of loss of love and affection is
reduced from `50,000/- to `25,000/-.
8. The overall compensation is re-computed as under:
S.No. Head of Granted by Granted by
Compensation the Claims this Court
Tribunal
1. Loss of Dependency `3,24,000/- `5,40,000/-
2. Loss of Love and `50,000/- `25,000/-
Affection
3. Funeral Expenses `10,000/- `10,000/-
4. Loss to Estate `10,000/- `10,000/-
Total `3,94,000/- `5,85,000/-R
9. The compensation is thus enhanced from `3,94,000/- to
`5,85,000/-.
10. The enhanced compensation of `1,91,000/- shall carry interest
@ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till
the date of payment.
11. The Respondent No.3 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is
directed to deposit the increased amount along with interest
within 30 days with the Registrar General of this Court.
12. 25% of the enhanced amount along with proportionate interest
shall be released to the First Appellant forthwith on deposit.
Rest of the amount shall be released/held in a Fixed Deposit in
favour of the Second Appellant for a period of three years.
13. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
pst
