National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Bikaner Assam Roadways & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 572 Del

R-1/(P-3)
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                   +     FAO No.696/2002

%                        Date of decision: 27th January, 2012

      NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.                 ..... Appellant
                    Through : Ms. Shantha         Devi Raman,
                              Adv.
               versus

      BIKANER ASSAM ROADWAYS & ORS.         ..... Respondents
                   Through : None.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

                       JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims

Tribunal whereby compensation of `3,25,000/- has been

awarded to the respondents.

2. The accident dated 12th December, 1996 resulted in the

death of Rajeev Kumar Tyagi. The deceased was aged 37

years at the time of accident and was survived by his parents,

widow and two children who filed the claim petitioner before

the Claims Tribunal. The respondents claim that the deceased

was running a book/stationery shop in the name of Anand Book

Depot earning `10,000/- per month. However, in the absence

of sufficient proof of income, the Claims Tribunal took the

minimum wages of `1,545/- per month, added 50% towards

the future prospects, deducted 1/3rd towards the personal

expenses and applied the multiplier of 16 to compute the loss

of dependency at `2,97,000/-. `3,000/- was awarded towards

funeral expenses and `25,000/- towards the non-pecuniary

damages. The total compensation awarded is `3,25,000/-.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

Claims Tribunal erred in taking the future prospects into

consideration. It is submitted that in the absence of any

evidence to that effect, the future prospects ought not to have

been taken into consideration. The learned counsel for the

appellant further submits that this case was remanded back by

this Court vide order dated 25th September, 2001 with liberty

to the parties to lead additional evidence with regard to the

income of the deceased and validity of driving licence. In that

view of the matter, the award of future prospects is not

warranted.

4. After the remand of this matter by this Court to the

Claims Tribunal, the father of the deceased appeared in the

witness box as PW-2 to prove the educational qualifications

and income of the deceased. PW-2 proved the higher

secondary examination certificate as Ex.PW2/X1 and the

graduation certificate as Ex.PW2/X2. The deceased was the

science graduate from Delhi University as per Ex.PW2/X1. PW-

2 also produced the electricity and telephone connections in

the name of the deceased. PW-2 also proved the electricity

and telephone bills in respect of shop bearing No.A-82, Nathhu

Colony, Mandoli Road, Delhi as Ex.PW2/X3 to Ex.PW2/X12. The

Claims Tribunal gravely erred in not taking the additional

evidence into consideration. The Claims Tribunal recorded a

finding: "Petitioners have not led any evidence regarding the

educational qualification of the deceased". This finding is

contrary to the evidence on record inasmuch as PW-2 has

sufficiently proved that the deceased was a science graduate

from Delhi University. The minimum wages for a graduate with

effect from 1st February, 1996 were `2,437/- per month. In

that view of the matter, the Claims Tribunal ought to have

taken the minimum wages of `2,437/- per month in respect of

the deceased.

5. The Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards the

personal expenses of the deceased whereas according to

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma

Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) Scale 129, the

appropriate deduction towards personal expenses of the

deceased is 1/4th as the deceased has left behind five legal

representatives.

6. Taking the minimum wages of `2,437/- per month into

consideration as the income of the deceased, deducting 1/4 th

towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying the

multiplier of 16, the claimants are entitled to loss of

dependency of `3,50,928/- (`2,437 x 3/4 x 12 x 16) whereas

the Claims Tribunal has awarded `2,97,000/- towards loss of

dependency and the award of the Claims Tribunal warrants

enhancement even if the future prospects are not taken into

consideration. However, since there is no appearance on

behalf of the respondents and the respondents have not filed

cross-objections, the enhancement is not warranted.

7. There is no merit in the appeal which is hereby

dismissed. No costs.

J.R. MIDHA, J JANUARY 27, 2012 aj