Delhi High Court
Bhagwati Devi Pathak & Ors. vs Airport Director & Ors on 5 July, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 5th July, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 186/2004
BHAGWATI DEVI PATHAK & ORS.
..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Peeyush Sharma, Advocate.
versus
AIRPORT DIRECTOR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate for
the Respondent No.3 Insurance
Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of ` 8,10,000/-
awarded for the death of Bhawani Dutt Pathak, who died in a
motor vehicle accident which occurred on 16.03.1995.
2. During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the
Claims Tribunal), it was claimed that the deceased was an ex
serviceman; he owned one redline bus and two tempo which
were financed by the Bank; he had an income of `32,000/- per
month and after paying installments of the loan, the deceased
had a net income of `5,000/- to 6,000/- per month.
3. On the basis of the evidence produced, the Claims Tribunal
found that the accident was caused on account of rash and
negligent driving of bus No.DL-1P-5648 by the Respondent
No.2 Pawan Kumar. The Claims Tribunal assumed the
deceased's income to be `6,000/- per month, added 50%
towards future prospects and applied a multiplier of 11 to
compute the loss of dependency as `7,92,000/-. The Claims
Tribunal further awarded a sum of `10,000/- towards the loss of
consortium, loss of love and affection and loss of estate and a
sum of `8,000/- towards last rites.
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the
deceased's income was bound to increase with the passage of
time as the loan obtained in respect of the two vehicles would
have been liquidated in a couple of years. It is submitted that
the Claims Tribunal ought to have accepted the deceased's
income to be `32,000/- per month to compute the loss of
dependency. It is stated that the deduction of 1/4 th ought to
have been made instead of 1/3rd as the number of dependents
were four.
5. It is important to note that in the A.Y. 1994-95 when this
accident took place, any income beyond `35,000/- per annum
i.e. `3,000/- per month was taxable. Therefore, even if the
deceased had net income beyond `35,000/-, he was expected to
file an Income Tax Return. He was entitled to deduction
towards repayment of the loan taken towards purchase of the
vehicles. Unfortunately, no documentary evidence as to the
quantum of loan and the installments paid per month was
produced by the Appellants. In the Claim Petition, the age of
the eldest son was mentioned as 26 years. He was thus not
financially dependent on the deceased's father.
6. Since the deceased was aged more than 52 years, the Appellants
were not entitled to any addition towards future prospects.
(Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,
(2009) 6 SCC 121 ). Thus, in awarding a compensation of
`7,92,000/- on an annual income of `1,08,000/-, the Claims
Tribunal was quite benevolent as any income beyond `35,000/-
was taxable and admittedly the deceased was not paying any
Income Tax.
7. The overall compensation of `8,10,000/- is not niggardly by any
standard. The same is just, reasonable and adequate.
8. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly
dismissed.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JULY 05, 2012
pst
