Delhi High Court
Saroj Kumari Singh & Ors. vs Yameen & Ors. on 25 January, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 25th January, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 893/2011
SAROJ KUMARI SINGH & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. with
Ms. Suman N. Rawat, Adv.
versus
YAMEEN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.K.Soni, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation for the death
of Devashish Kumar Singh who was aged about 24 years at the
time of the accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the
Claims Tribunal) by the impugned judgment dated 29.07.2011
granted a compensation of ` 7,72,100/-.
2. The Appellant's grievance is that for the purpose of
computation of loss of dependency, all perquisites paid to the
deceased like HRA, professional charges, medical
reimbursement, bonus, etc. should have been taken into
consideration. Reliance is placed on National Insurance
Company Limited v. Indira Srivastava, (2008) 2 SCC 763.
3. It is urged that Smt. Saroj Kumari Singh, the deceased's mother
was aged about 43 years on the date of the accident and the
appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, was '14'. The Tribunal
fell into error in selecting the multiplier of '13'.
4. In Indira Srivastava (supra) it was held that for the purpose of
computation of the loss of dependency not only take home
salary but also other allowances and perks which would have
benefited the entire family and prospective loss of future
earning is to be considered.
5. I am in agreement with the contention raised on behalf of the
Appellants. As per the Salary Certificate Ex.PW-5/B, except
for the conveyance charges of `10,800/- the entire salary was
for the benefit of the deceased and his family. The deceased's
income therefore, should have been considered as ` 1,64,200/-
(` 1,75,000/- - 10,800/-) as against ` 1,13,400/- per annum as
considered by the Tribunal. Since the deceased was in the job
just for a few months and in the absence of any evidence as to
the future prospects, the Appellants would not be entitled to any
future prospects.
6. On an income of ` 1,64,200/- there would be liability of income
tax amounting to `2200/- for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The
annual income of the deceased comes to `1,62,000/- (`
1,64,200/- - 2200/-).
7. The loss of dependency comes to ` 11,34,000/- (1,62,000/- - ½
x 14).
8. Normally, the Claims Tribunal and Courts award compensation
of `25,000/- towards the loss of love and affection. 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.
9. Thus, the amount of `20,000/- awarded under loss of love and
affection needs to be enhanced to ` 25,000/-. Funeral expenses
is also enhanced to `10,000/- from `5,000/- granted by the
Tribunal.
10. The compensation is reassessed as under:-
1. Loss of Dependency `11,34,000/-
2. Loss of Love and Affection ` 25,000/-
3. Loss of Estate ` 10,000/-
4. Funeral Expenses & Transportation ` 10,000/-
Charges
Total ` 11,79,000/-
11. The overall compensation is enhanced from `7,72,100/- to `
11,79,000/-. The enhanced amount of `4,06,900/- shall carry
interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of the filing of the
petition till the date of payment.
12. Respondent No.3 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with the upto
date interest within 30 days with the Registrar General of this
Court, which shall be payable to the First Appellant.
13. The amount so deposited shall be held in fixed deposits for a
period of three years with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
Branch, New Delhi.
14. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
15. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 25, 2012
vk
