Delhi High Court
Lata Venkatesan & Ors. vs Kastur Chand & Ors. on 6 March, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 6th March, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 504/2005
LATA VENKATESAN & ORS. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Aashish Gupta, Advocate
versus
KASTUR CHAND & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate for
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `
14,72,000/- awarded for the death of S. Venkatesan who died in
an accident which occurred on 28.04.1993.
2. The deceased was aged about 51 years and four months on the
date of the accident. He was working in Australian High
Commission and was getting a gross salary of ` 14,233/- per
month as per the certificate. On adding future prospects, the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) took the
deceased salary to be ` 16,500/-, deducted ` 5500/- towards his
personal and living expenses and on adopting a multiplier of
'11' the loss of dependency was worked out as ` 14,52,000/-.
3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the
Claims Tribunal erred in not taking into consideration the
perquisites which the deceased was getting while working in
Australian High Commission.
4. It is urged that the rate of interest awarded by the Claims
Tribunal i.e. 6% per annum was also very low.
5. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the Respondent
No.3 Insurance Company that the Claims Tribunal erred in
granting future prospects. In fact, at the deceased's age who
was more than 51 years, he was not entitled to any future
prospects on the basis of ratio in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.
6. In Sarla Verma (supra) it was held that unless there are any
exceptional circumstances no future prospects should be granted
where the deceased is more than 50 years.
7. No extraordinary circumstance was brought on record during
inquiry before the Claims Tribunal. At the same time, the
Claims Tribunal erred in taking the deceased's take home salary
as ` 12,000/- per month, when the certificate placed on record
showed that he was getting a gross salary of ` 14,233/-. In the
absence of any evidence to the contrary deduction towards the
income tax only was required to be made.
8. The annual salary of the deceased comes to ` 1,70,796/-
(14,233/- x 12).
9. There is a liability of about ` 40,000/- towards the income tax
for the assessment year 1994-95 on this amount. On taking this
sum, the loss of dependency comes to ` 14,38,756/- (1,30,796/-
x 11) as against ` 14,52,000/- adopted by the Claims Tribunal.
10. The Claims Tribunal added a sum of ` 10,000/- on account of
funeral expenses and ` 10,000/- on account of loss of love and
affection.
11. Considering that the accident took place in the year 1993, this
sum cannot be said to be unreasonable. Still there is excess of
about ` 13,000/- which shall be treated towards the loss to
estate.
12. Thus, the overall compensation of ` 14,72,000/- awarded by the
Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be low. The same in my
view is just and proper.
13. So far as the rate of interest awarded @ 6% per annum is
concerned, the interest rates were high in the 1990s. Albeit, it
came down since the year 2000 and started climbing up since
the year 2008.
14. In the circumstances, I would not interfere with the grant of
interest @ 6% per annum.
15. The Appeal is devoid of any merit. The same is accordingly
dismissed.
16. No costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 06, 2012
vk
