Jai Singh & Anr. vs Mahipal & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1984 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Decided on: 22nd March, 2012
+       MAC. APP. 440/2010

        JAI SINGH & ANR.                         ..... Appellants
                      Through:        Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. with
                                      Ms. Suman N. Rawat, Adv.
                          versus

        MAHIPAL & ORS.                    ..... Respondents
                     Through:         Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv.
                                      for R-3.

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

                          JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellants seek enhancement of compensation of ` 2,07,500/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) for the death of Rajvir Singh who died in a motor accident which occurred on 21.05.2007.

2. In the absence of any Appeal by the owner or the Insurance Company, the finding on negligence has become final between the parties.

3. The Claims Tribunal while computing the compensation took the notional income of the deceased to be `15,000/- per annum, added 50% i.e. `7,500/- to take the potential income of the

deceased, deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses and applied the multiplier of '14' (suitable to the age of the deceased's mother) to calculate the loss of dependency as `1,57,500/-.

4. The approach of the Claims Tribunal was totally erroneous. The Claims Tribunal mixed the principles under Section 163-A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act while awarding the compensation.

5. The case is covered by the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Farzana & Ors., 2009 ACJ 2763, wherein an overall compensation of ` `3,75,000/- was awarded in case of the death of a minor child to the parents.

6. Since the Claim Petition was preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act) and the deceased was non Matriculate. (he got a compartment in matriculation), his income should have been taken by the Claims Tribunal as `3663/- per month according to the Minimum Wages Act.

7. The loss of dependency on applying the principle as per Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 would comes to ` 3,29,670/- (3663/- ÷ 2 x 12 x

15).

8. On adding notional sums of `25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, `10,000/- towards loss to Estate and `10,000/-

towards funeral expenses, the overall compensation comes to ` 3,74,670/-.

9. In the circumstances, I would make an award of `3,75,000/-

which is also in consonance with Farzana (supra).

10. The enhanced compensation of ` 1,67,500/- shall carry interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment.

11. Respondent No.3 the New India Assurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with the proportionate interest within 30 days with Registrar General of this Court.

12. 25% of the enhanced compensation along with the proportionate interest shall be payable to the first Appellant and rest 75% of the compensation along with proportionate interest shall be paid to the second Appellant. 80% of the amount shall be held in fixed deposit for a period of two years in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court, New Delhi.

13. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

14. No costs.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MARCH 22, 2012 vk