United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Bhoodev Prasad & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1649 Del

R-36(Part-III)
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                   +       MAC.APP.578/2008

%                               Date of decision: 7th March, 2012

      UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.      ...... Appellant
                     Through : Mr. S.L. Gupta and
                               Mr. Ram Ashray, Advs.
                versus

      BHOODEV PRASAD & ORS.                       ..... Respondents
                  Through : None.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

                       JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims

Tribunal whereby compensation of `9,37,000/- has been

awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 and 2. The appellant

seeks reduction of the award amount.

2. The accident dated 29th February, 2004 resulted in the

death of Neeraj Kumar. The deceased was survived by his

parents aged 54 and 57 years respectively who filed the claim

petition before the Claims Tribunal. The deceased was aged

24 years at the time of the accident and was unmarried. The

deceased was doing civil engineering from G.P. Pant

Polytechnic, New Delhi and was in 6th semester. The mark

sheets of the engineering course were proved as Ex.PW-2/2 to

Ex.PW-2/5. The deceased as also selected for training in Delhi

Metro Rail Corporation. The identity card and letter were

proved as Ex.PW-2/6 and Ex.PW-2/7. The deceased was

simultaneously doing a part-time job with M/s B.N. Enterprises

and M/s M.R.S. Bhaskar, earning `8,500/- per month. The

proprietor of M/s B.N. Enterprises and M/s M.R.S. Bhaskar

appeared in the witness box as PW-3 and PW-4 to prove the

part-time income of the deceased.

3. The Claims Tribunal took the earning capacity of the

deceased to be `20,000/- per month after finishing the course

of civil engineering. However, the Claims Tribunal reduced the

said amount by taking the average of `8,500/- and `20,000/-.

The income of the deceased for computation of compensation

was taken as `14,250/- [(`20,000 + `8,500)/2]. The Claims

Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the

deceased and applied the multiplier of 8 to compute the loss of

dependency at `9,12,000/-. `25,000/- was awarded towards

loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. The total

compensation awarded was `9,37,000/-.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged following

two grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-

(i) The income of the deceased has not been proved.

(ii) The personal expenses of the deceased be reduced from

1/3rd to 1/2 since the deceased was unmarried.

5. With respect to the first contention, this Court is of the

view that there is no infirmity in the findings of the Claims

Tribunal to take the income of the deceased as `14,250/-. In

Ram Chand Joshi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

MAC.APP.Nos.212-213/2006 decided on 20th January, 2010

and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ganga Devi, III

(2010) ACC 6, this Court has held that the income of a

student of a professional course should be taken according to

his earning capacity after completing the course. The

deceased in the present case after completing the engineering

the course would certainly have earned `14,250/- per month.

The finding of the Claims Tribunal in this regard is, therefore,

upheld.

6. There is merit in the second contention of learned

counsel for the appellant with respect to deduction of personal

expenses. Since the deceased was unmarried, the appropriate

deduction towards the personal expenses should be 1/2

whereas the Claims Tribunal has taken the personal expenses

as 1/3rd. The Claims Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 8

according to the age of the father who was 57 years at that

time. However, since the mother of the deceased was aged 54

years, the Claims Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier

of 11 according to the age of the mother.

7. Taking the income of the deceased as `14,250/-,

deducting 1/2 towards personal expenses and applying the

multiplier of 11, the loss of dependency is computed to be

`9,40,500/-. Applying the principles laid down in Section 167

of the Indian Evidence Act, the award of `9,37,000/- by the

Claims Tribunal is upheld for the reasons stated above as there

is sufficient evidence on record to justify the compensation

awarded by the learned Tribunal.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

9. The statutory amount of `25,000/- be refunded back to

the appellant through counsel within four weeks.

10. LCR be returned back forthwith.

11. Copy of this judgment be sent to respondent Nos.1 and 2

as well as their counsel.

J.R. MIDHA, J MARCH 07, 2012 mk