Arun Sharma & Ors. vs Ram Kumar Tyagi & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 300 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Decided on: 16th January, 2012
+       MAC APP. 773/2011

        ARUN SHARMA & ORS.          ...... Appellants
                Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. with
                         Ms. Suman N. Rawat, Advocate

                                 Versus

        RAM KUMAR TYAGI & ORS.            ..... Respondents
               Through: Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Advocate for
                         R-3/Insurance Company.

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

                           JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellants being legal representatives of Ms. Soni seek enhancement of compensation of ` 65,000/- for her death in an accident which took place on 16.08.2010.

2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants, who are the parents and minor brothers and sisters of the deceased that the compensation awarded is too meager and low.

3. It is admitted case of the Appellants that there was a matrimonial dispute between the deceased and her husband. Ms. Soni was, therefore, residing away from her husband and with her parents. The Appellants or for that matter the other

minor brothers and sisters were not dependent upon the deceased. There was thus no loss of dependency on account of death of Ms. Soni.

4. In Manjuri Bera (Smt.) v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. (2007) 10 SCC 643, the question of award of compensation for death of a married daughter came up for consideration before the Calcutta High Court. The Claim Petition filed by the deceased's mother was dismissed by the Tribunal as also by the Calcutta High Court on the ground that there was no loss of dependency. The Supreme Court referred to the term „legal representative‟, as used under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act) with reference to its definition under Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and held that the definition of „legal representative‟ as contained in Section 2 (11) CPC is applicable to the Act and is inclusive in character, its scope is wide and is not confined to legal heirs only. The Supreme Court referred to Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique, 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 275 and held that the legal representatives are entitled to the statutory compensation payable under Section 140 of the Act. Para 13 to 15 of the report are extracted hereunder:-

"13. There are several factors which have to be noted. The liability under Section 140 of the Act does not cease because there is absence of dependency. The right to file a claim application has to be considered in the background of right to

entitlement. While assessing the quantum, the multiplier system is applied because of deprivation of dependency. In other words, multiplier is a measure. There are three stages while assessing the question of entitlement. Firstly, the liability of the person who is liable and the person who is to indemnify the liability, if any. Next is the quantification and Section 166 is primarily in the nature of recovery proceedings. As noted above, liability in terms of Section 140 of the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency.

14. Section 165 of the Act also throws some light on the controversy. The Explanation includes the liability under Sections 140 and 163-A.

15. Judged in that background where a legal representative who is not dependant files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act."

5. In view of Manjuri Bera, I hold that the Appellants are entitled to a sum of `50,000/- towards the loss of estate in addition to a sum of ` 25,000/- on account of loss of love and affection and `10,000/- towards the funeral expenses.

6. The compensation awarded is enhanced from `65,000/- to ` 85,000/-.

7. The enhanced compensation of ` 20,000/- shall carry interest @ 7.5 per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment. Respondent No.3 United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks along with interest as per the Tribunal's order and shall be payable to the Appellant No.1 Arun Sharma father of the deceased.

8. The appeal is allowed in above terms.

9. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE JANUARY 16, 2012 vk