Delhi High Court
Prem Lata Bhardwaj & Ors vs Sushil Kumar Gupta & Ors on 27 July, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 27th July, 2012
Pronounced on: 30th July, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 332/2004
PREM LATA BHARDWAJ & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Ms.Veena Goswami, Adv.
versus
SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Anil Aggarwal, Adv. for
R-3 & R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appellants who are the legal heirs of deceased Sudarshan
Kumar Bhardwaj impugns a judgment dated 17.04.2001 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal)
whereby they were granted a compensation of `4,46,027/- for
the death of S.K. Bhardwaj who died in a motor vehicle
accident which occurred on 29.06.1994.
2. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver or the legal
representatives of the owner, the finding on negligence has
attained finality.
3. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the
deceased was getting a basic salary of `2750/- per month; it
added 50% towards the future prospects; deducted `1,000/-
towards the deceased's personal and living expenses and
applied the multiplier of '11' to compute the loss of dependency
as `4,12,500/-.
4. The Claims Tribunal granted a sum of `26,527/- towards the
medical treatment received by the deceased till he succumbed to
the injuries sustained in the accident in addition to a sum of
`2,000/- for funeral expenses and `5,000/- as loss of
consortium.
5. Since the owner had died during the proceedings, the Claims
Tribunal made only the First Respondent being driver of the
offending vehicle liable to pay the compensation.
6. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the
Appellants:-
(1) The gross salary of the deceased at the time of the
accident was `6377/- per month. The Claims Tribunal
erred in awarding compensation only on the basis of basic
pay. It was established from PW-2's testimony that the
deceased was getting a salary of one month more as he
was employed in Intelligence Bureau (IB). The legal heirs
were entitled to compensation on the salary of 13 months
instead of 12 months in a year.
(2) The appropriate multiplier at the age of 47 is '13' as
against '11' adopted by the Claims Tribunal.
(3) Since the numbers of dependents were '4' there should
have been deduction of one-fourth towards the personal
and living expenses of the deceased instead of one-third
made by the Claims Tribunal.
(4) The compensation awarded towards non pecuniary heads
was too meager.
(5) Respondents No.2 to 4 being legal representatives of
deceased Bhawani Shankar, owner of the offending two
wheeler DEI-5518 were liable to pay the compensation to
the extent of the estate inherited by them. The Claims
Tribunal erred in not making them liable.
QUANTUM:-
7. In order to prove the deceased's salary the Appellants examined
Om Prakash Rathi, Section Officer, Intelligence Bureau as PW-
2. He deposed that the deceased Sudarshan Kumar Bhardwaj
was working as Assistant Intelligence Officer, Grade-I and was
getting a gross salary of `6377/- per month. A copy of the
salary certificate was also placed on record. He deposed that as
an Intelligence Officer their department pays salary of 13
months in a year in lieu of duties performed on holidays, if it is
certified that the employee performed duties on holidays and no
compensation was paid to him for that. The witness was
however, silent if the deceased was being paid a salary for 13
months and he had not obtained any other compensation or
leave in lieu of working on holidays. In the circumstances, the
Appellants are not entitled to compensation for additional salary
for one month.
8. It was established on record that the deceased left behind a
widow and three children. Thus, deduction towards personal
and living expenses has to be one-fourth; considering his age to
be 47 years, addition of 30% only is required to be made as
against 50% made by the Claims Tribunal. Moreover, income
tax paid on the salary receivable is required to be deducted to
compute the loss of dependency.
9. The loss of dependency thus comes to `8,43,737/- (6377/- x 12
- 9957/- (income tax) + 30% x 3/4 x 13).
10. This accident took place in the year 1994. The Appellants are
awarded compensation of `15,000/- towards loss of love and
affection and `5,000/- each towards loss to estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses.
11. The award of compensation of `26,527/- towards medical
treatment is maintained. The overall compensation thus comes
to `9,00,264/-.
12. The compensation is thus enhanced from `4,46,027/- to
`9,00,264/-. The enhanced compensation of `4,54,237/- shall
carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
Petition till its payment.
13. As far as liability of Respondents No.2 to 4 to pay the
compensation is concerned, Section 50 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (the Code) makes the legal representatives liable to
satisfy the decree only to the extent of the deceased's estate
which comes to hands of the legal representatives. A reference
may be made to Yogesh Sharma & Ors. v. Devi Dayal & Ors.,
ILR (1978) 1 Delhi 151, where it was held as under:-
"12. It is true that the decree was passed against the
sons and the daughter but it was passed against them in
their representative character as the legal
representatives of the deceased Manohar Lal. This
distinction is apparent in the various provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure. By sub-section (2) of s.50
where the decree is executed against the legal
representative he is liable only to the extent of the
property of the deceased which has come to his hands
and has not been duly disposed of. Ordinarily the legal
representative does not incur any personal liability. He
is representing the estate of a deceased person. The
decree can be executed to the extent of the property of the
deceased in his hands....."
14. Thus, Respondents No.2 to 4 are also liable to pay the
compensation being legal representatives of deceased Bhawani
Shanker to the extent of the estate coming to their hands in
addition to Respondent No.1, the principal tortfeasor.
15. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
16. No costs.
17. Pending Applications stands disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JULY 30, 2012/vk
