Delhi High Court
Smt. Anita And Others vs Shri C. Kulandaivel And Ors on 16 July, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 16th July, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 80/2009
SMT. ANITA AND OTHERS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. P.L. Sharma, Adv.
versus
SHRI C. KULANDAIVEL AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Adv. for R-3.
Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Adv. for R-4.
Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv. for R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `6,98,000/-
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims
Tribunal) for the death of Shri Krishan who died in a motor
vehicle accident which occurred on 11.12.2005.
2. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that
the deceased was earning `4,500/- per month. On 11.12.2005
deceased Shri Krishan was driving a Tata Qualis No.DL-IVB-
0074 from Jaipur to Delhi. When he reached near Shahjahanpur
Check Post on National Highway No.8, the Tata Qualis collided
against a stationary truck No.TN-28L-1555 which was parked
in the middle of the road in a dangerous and careless manner.
3. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that
there was negligence in the ratio of 70:30 on the part of the
truck driver and the Qualis driver (the deceased). Respondents
No. 1 and 2 were held liable to pay the compensation to the
extent of 70% and Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance
Company Limited, being the authorized Insurer was held liable
to indemnify the insured (Respondent No.2). Respondent No.4,
Amandeep Singh was the owner of the Tata Qualis. He being
the deceased's employer was held liable to pay the
compensation. M/s. National Insurance Company Limited was
held liable to indemnify the Insured as the risk of the employee
was covered by the Insurance Policy.
4. There is no challenge to this finding by Respondents No.1 to 5.
5. Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellants:-
(i) That PW-4 Amandeep Singh's (employer) testimony that
he was paying a salary of `4,500/- per month to the
driver, was not challenged in cross-examination. The
Claims Tribunal erred in taking the deceased's income as
per the Minimum Wages of a skilled worker i.e. `3600/-
per month.
(ii) The number of dependents were five. Even if father is
excluded, there were four dependents and there should
have been a deduction of one-fourth of the deceased's
income towards the personal and living expenses instead
of one-third as taken by the Claims Tribunal.
(iii) The appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verma (Smt.) &
Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6
SCC 121 was '16'. The Claims Tribunal erred in taking
the multiplier as '15'.
6. The Appeal must succeed on all the grounds.
7. PW-4's testimony with regard to the salary of Shri Krishan, (the
deceased), was not challenged in cross-examination. It may be
noticed that Shri Krishan was employed just about a month
before the date of the accident and no document could have
been possibly brought by Amandeep Singh with regard to his
salary. Moreover, the Court can also assume that in the year
2005, the driver of a commercial vehicle like Qualis must be
getting a salary of at least `150/- per day i.e. `4,500/- per month
in the year 2005.
8. The Claims Tribunal had added 50% towards the future
prospects. However, in the absence of any evidence with regard
to the future prospects, the Appellants were entitled to an
increase of 30% towards the inflation on the basis of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Santosh Devi v. National
Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559.
9. It is also not disputed that there were four dependents of the
deceased Shri Krishan in addition to his father. The deduction
towards the personal and living expenses, therefore, should
have been one-fourth as per Sarla Verma (supra). Since the
deceased was aged 34 years at the time of the accident, the
suitable multiplier to be adopted is '16' instead of '15'.
10. The loss of dependency thus comes to `8,42,400/- (4500/- +
30% x 12 x 3/4 x 16).
11. No provision was made for awarding compensation towards the
loss of consortium and loss to estate. I would make a provision
for `10,000/- each under both the heads. In addition to a sum of
`40,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards the loss of
love and affection and ` 10,000/- towards funeral expenses.
12. The overall compensation comes to `9,12,400/-.
13. The enhanced compensation of ` 2,14,400/- shall carry interest
@ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its
payment.
14. Respondents No.3 and 5 (the United India Insurance Company
Limited and M/s. National Insurance Company Limited) are
directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with
interest in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court, New Delhi within six
weeks.
15. It may be noticed that no compensation was awarded by the
Claims Tribunal in favour of the parents. Mother has been
considered to be financially dependent on the son as per Sarla
Verma (supra).
16. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of `75,000/- along
with proportionate interest shall be payable to the Respondent
No.8, who is deceased's mother and a sum of `40,000/- along
with proportionate interest to Respondent No7, who is
deceased's father.
17. Rest of the compensation along with proportionate interest shall
enure for the benefit of the Appellant Anita and shall be utilized
by her for herself as well as for the benefit of her two minor
children.
18. 50% of the enhanced compensation shall be held in fixed
deposit for a period of three years. Rest shall be released to the
Claimants.
19. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
20. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JULY 16, 2012
vk
