Manohar Lal & Anr vs Deepak Sharma & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 4349 Del

$~45
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Date of decision:23rd July, 2012
+        MAC. APP. No.772/2012

         MANOHAR LAL & ANR.                         ..... Appellants
                     Through:           Mr. Peeush Sharma, Advocate

                        Versus

         DEEPAK SHARMA & ORS.                       ..... Respondents
                     Through: None.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

CM. APPL. No.12370/2012

There is a delay of 15 days in refiling the Appeal. For the reasons stated in the Application the delay is condoned

The Application stands disposed of.

MAC.APP. 772/2012

1. The Appellants (the Claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) seek enhancement of compensation of `16,83,000/- awarded for the death of Gaurav Gaur who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 14.01.2010.

2. The Claims Tribunal accepted the deceased's income to be `14,000/- per month (as claimed), added 50% towards future

prospects, deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses in the case of a bachelor (per Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121), applied a multiplier of 13 (as per the age of deceased's mother) and to compute the loss of dependency as `16,38,000/-. On adding notional sum of `45,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages, an overall compensation of `16,83,000/- was awarded.

3. The multiplier of '15' is in consonance with the three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandara & Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 362. The multiplier has to be applied as per the age of the deceased or the Claimant, whichever is higher because if the age of the Claimants is higher, the dependency would come to an end early and if the age of the deceased is higher, then the deceased can take care of the dependency of the Claimants till he himself survives. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of three Judges Bench in Trilok Chandara(supra), it cannot be said that the Claims Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier as per the age of the Claimants.

4. Similarly, with regard to the deduction towards personal and living expenses, the Supreme Court dealt with in detail in Sarla Verma the purpose of 50% deduction towards personal and living expenses in case of a bachelor.Sarla Verma was followed

in Arun Kumar Agrawal & Anr. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 218 and Shakti Devi v. New India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., (2010) 11 SCALE 571.

5. The award of compensation of `16,83,000/- is in consonance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The impugned judgment does not call for any interference.

6. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.

7. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE JULY 23, 2012 pst