Delhi High Court
Dhanwanti Pardasani & Ors. vs Jasbir Singh & Ors. on 13 July, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:13th July, 2012
+ FAO. No.165/2003
DHANWANTI PARDASANI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.M. Qayam-u-Din, Advocate
Versus
JASBIR SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Santosh Tiwari, Advocate proxy
counsel for Mr. Ram N. Sharma,
Advocate for respondent No.4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
CM. APPL. No.372/2003
The Appellant has explained in detail the circumstances under
which she was not informed by her counsel about passing of the
impugned award.
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 7 years 7
months and 16 days in filing the Appeal is condoned.
The CM. APPL No.372/2003 stands disposed of.
FAO. No.165/2003
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `90,000/- in
favour of the Appellants for the death of Mohan Paradarshani
who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on
11.12.1981.
2. During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the
Claims Tribunal), the Appellants claimed that the deceased was
working as a Accountant with New Okhla Industrial
Development Authority(NOIDA) and drawing a salary of
`1536.50P per month on the date of the accident. The
deceased was survived by his widow and two sons. The
Claims Tribunal took the loss of dependency as `1500/- per
month itself and applied a multiplier of just '5' to compute the
loss of dependency as `90,000/-.
3. A plea with regard to limited liability with respect to the
passengers travelling in the bus(the deceased being one of
them) was raised before the Claims Tribunal. The same did not
find favour and it was held that the Respondent No.4 Insurance
Company's liability was unlimited. The finding on negligence
and liability are not challenged by the Respondent Insurance
Company and have thus become final between the parties.
4. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the
Appellants:
(i) The multiplier of '5' considering the age of the
deceased to be 48 was too low; appropriate multiplier
at this age was '13'.
(ii) The deceased's future prospects were not considered,
particularly in view of PW3's testimony who
deposed that the deceased's salary was increased
retrospectively w.e.f. 01.07.1979.
(iii) The Claims Tribunal erred in not granting any
compensation towards non-pecuniary damages.
5. The Appeal must succeed on all the grounds.
6. It may be noticed that the deceased was in service of UP
Government and on the date of the accident was working with
NOIDA. The Appellants examined Subodh Kumar Sharma,
Junior Accountant, Noida Authority as PW5. He deposed that
on the date of the accident, the deceased's salary was
`1536.50P per month. He testified that the salary was
retrospectively revised on 01.07.1979 and the deceased's salary
would have been doubled. The details of the salary on account
of revision of the Pay Scales with retrospective effect was,
however, not given. It is difficult to accept that on revision of
the Pay Scales, salary of a Govt. employee would double.
Normally, there is an increase of about 10% on implementation
of a Pay Commission. Thus, the Appellants are entitled to an
increase of 10% on account of retrospective pay revision and
an increase of 30% towards future prospects as the deceased
was aged 48 years( per Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121). There would be a
deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses as per
Sarla Verma (supra), and the multiplier of 13 would be applied
as per the age of the deceased. The loss of dependency comes
to `2,23,641/-(`1536/- + 40% x 12 x 2 ÷3 x 13). Considering
that the accident took place in the year 1982, I would make a
provision of `15,000/- towards loss of love and affection and
`5,000/- each towards loss of consortium, loss to estate and
funeral expenses. The overall compensation thus comes to
`2,53,641/-.
7. There was a long delay of about 7 years 7 months and 16 days
in filing the Appeal and the delay in filing the Appeal was
condoned. In the circumstances of the case, the Appellants
would be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date
of the filing of the Petition till the date of the award and then
for the period of five years during the pendency of the Appeal
and thereafter till the date of payment.
8. The Respondent No.4 Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the enhanced amount of `1,63,641/- along with interest in the
name of the First Appellant with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
Branch within six weeks. The enhanced compensation shall
enure for the benefit of the First Appellant. The enhanced
compensation shall be released in favour of the First Appellant
immediately on deposit.
9. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
10. The pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JULY 13, 2012
pst
