Delhi High Court
Ravinder Rai & Anr. vs Ram Niwas & Ors. on 3 January, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 3rd January, 2012
+ MAC APP. 290/2010
RAVINDER RAI & ANR. ...... Appellants
Through: Mr. Rajnish K. Jha, Advocate.
Versus
RAM NIWAS & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth 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 for death of
Neelam Kumari who was aged about 18 years at the time of the
accident which took place on 04.07.2008. The deceased was a
student of 12th standard.
2. During inquiry before the Tribunal, the Appellant claimed that
the deceased was earning ` 4,500/- per month by doing tuitions.
The said fact, however, was not established by any cogent
evidence. The Tribunal, therefore, took notional income of the
deceased as ` 15,000/- per annum, deducted 50% towards the
personal living expenses, applied multiplier of 13 and calculated
the loss of dependency to be ` 97,500/-. After adding certain
amounts towards loss of love and affection/loss of company of
the child, loss of estate, funeral expenses and future prospects,
an overall compensation of ` 2,47,500/- was awarded.
3. It is important to note that this very Tribunal by an order dated
24.02.2010 i.e. just after a month of passing of this order
decided another Claim Petition in respect of death of another
young girl Ms. Anjali in this very accident (in MAC APP.
1158/2008 decided on 24.02.2010) wherein the Tribunal
awarded a compensation of ` 3,75,000/- on the basis of the
judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company v.
Farzana & Ors., 2009 ACJ 2763. Two different lines of
computation of compensation have been taken by the Tribunal
in the two cases arising out of the same accident. The Tribunal
has to be mindful that there has to be uniformity in the award of
compensation not only in cases arising out of the same accident
but in similar cases arising out of the different accidents. Let
me come to the facts of this case.
4. It was established on record and is not disputed by the
Respondent Insurance Company that the deceased was a student
of 12th standard. In other words, the deceased was a
Matriculate. In case of a young person who is more than 18
years and is pursuing his/her studies, his/her potential income
has to be taken into consideration to award just compensation.
In the case of Haji Zainullah Khan (Dead) by Lrs. v. Nagar
Mahapalika, Allahabad, 1994 (5) SCC 667, death of a young
boy, aged 20 years took place in an accident which happened in
the year 1972. The deceased was a student of B.Sc Ist year
(Biology), a compensation of ` 1,46,900/- was held to be on the
lower side. It was not interfered and was rounded off to `
1,50,000/- on the ground of long lapse of time since the date of
the accident.
5. In Ganga Devi & Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.,
MAC APP. 359/2008, decided by this Court on 23.11.2009
which related to the death of a student (studying medicine)
doing internship and was to be awarded MBBS degree in a short
time. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of ` 9,35,352/- on
the basis of the minimum wages of a Graduate. This Court
observed that although the deceased was getting a stipend of `
5,000/- per month at the time of his death in the accident, he
would have ultimately joined as a doctor at a salary ranging
between ` 16,000/- per month to ` 25,000/- per month. Thus,
average monthly income of the deceased was taken as `
18,000/- and after adding 50% towards future prospects, the
compensation was enhanced to ` 21,36,000/-.
6. It is urged by Mr. Pankaj Seth, learned counsel for the
Respondent Insurance Company that the deceased was a female
child and would have got married after a couple of years and
thus there was no loss of dependency to the Appellants.
7. The contention shows gender bias on the part of the Respondent
Insurance Company. We are in 21st Century and the daughters,
in today's society take as much care of their parents as the sons.
There is no intelligible basis to deny compensation to the
parents in respect of the death of a daughter or a female child.
8. The minimum wages of a matriculate on the date of the accident
i.e. 04.07.2008 were ` 4081/- per month. The deceased would
have earned at least this much amount after completing her 12 th
standard. Assuming that the deceased would have spent 50% of
her income towards her personal and living expenses she would
have contributed ` 2040/- to her parents specially Appellant
No.2, the mother. Appellant No.2 was aged 37 years and six
months at the time of the accident. The Tribunal fell into error
in applying the multiplier of 13; it should have been 15
according to the age of the deceased's mother. The loss of
dependency thus works out as ` 3,67,290/- (i.e. ` 4081/2 = 2040
x 12 x 15).
9. After adding notional sums of ` 25,000/- towards loss of love
and affection, ` 10,000/- towards loss of estate and ` 10,000/-
towards funeral expenses, the overall compensation works out
as ` 4,12,290/- rounded off ` 4,12,300/-.
10. The compensation is enhanced from ` 2,47,500/- to ` 4,12,300/-.
The compensation awarded shall carry interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of
payment. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the enhanced amount along with interest within 30 days
with Registrar General of Delhi High Court.
11. Appellant No.1 would be entitled to 25% of the compensation
along with proportionate interest, whereas Appellant No.2
mother would be entitled to 75% of the compensation along
with proportionate interest.
12. 80% of the compensation awarded to each of the Appellants
shall be held in Fixed Deposit for a period of three years in
UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi. Rest of the
amount shall be released forthwith.
13. Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY, 03, 2012
vk
