Mewa Devi vs Ram Bharose
2012 Latest Caselaw 1986 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Decided on: 22th March, 2012
+       MAC.APP. 602/2007

        MEWA DEVI                                 ..... Appellant
                             Through:   Mr.S.N.Parashar, Advocate

                    versus

        RAM BHAROSE                                  ..... Respondent
                             Through:   Ms.Gunjan Chowksey,
                                        Advocate for Mr.Kanwal
                                        Choudhary, Advocate for R-3.
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation of ` 3,55,458/- awarded for the death of Satish Kumar who died in an accident which occurred on 30.08.2004. By impugned order the Claims Tribunal held that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of Tanker No. DL IGB- 0624 by the Respondent No.1.

2. Although, during enquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that the deceased was working as an RTV driver and his salary was stated to be `200/- per day. Yet in the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the deceased's employment or salary, the Claims Tribunal took the minimum

wages of an unskilled worker, deducted 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses and selected the multiplier of '13' to compute the loss of dependency as `3,15,458/-. An overall compensation of `3,55,458/- was awarded.

3. Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellants:-

(i) The deceased was working as an RTV driver, his income should have been believed to be `200/- per day as claimed by the Appellants.

(ii) The number of dependants were eight; thus instead of 1/3rd , 1/5th ought to have been deducted towards the personal and living expenses.

(iii) The deceased was aged 45 years at the time of accident as accepted by the Claims Tribunal, the appropriate multiplier would be '14' instead of '13' as taken by the Claims Tribunal.

4. During evidence before the Claims Tribunal, Mewa Devi the widow of the deceased appeared as PW-1 and testified that the deceased was working as a driver of RTV Vans and was earning `200/- per day. She deposed that he used to work daily except

on one or two Sundays in a month. In cross-examination PW-1 admitted that she was not in possession of any documentary evidence with regard to the deceased's income or his profession.

5. This is important to note that ASI Ved Pal (PW-3), the IO of the criminal case registered in respect of this accident admitted in the cross-examination that the deceased was driving the RTV at

the time of the accident. Thus it is established on record that the deceased used to drive an RTV.

6. Since, it is established on record that the deceased was working as a driver of RTV in the year 2004, I would assess his income to be at least ` 150/- per day though it was claimed to be `200/- per day by the Appellant No.1. Taking into account some holidays and Sundays, I would assess his income to be `4000/- per month.

7. Even if the deceased's father i.e. Appellant No.2 is taken to be not financially dependent, there were eight dependants including the mother i.e Appellant No.3 and six minor children ( Appellants No. 4 to 9). Therefore a deduction of 1/5 th is required to be made towards personal and living expenses in view of the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121. The appropriate multiplier would also be '14' instead of '13', thus the loss of dependency would come to `5,37,600/-

(`4000x4/5x12x14). The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of ` 10,000/- towards loss of Love and Affection which I would raise to `25,000/-. The compensation is re-computed as under:-

                                    Compensation           Compensation
                                     awarded by           awarded by this
                                       Claims                 court
                                      Tribunal
     1. Loss of dependency             `3,15,458/-               `5,37,600/-
                                                          (`4000x4/5x12x14)
     2. Love and Affection                  ` 10,000/-               ` 25,000/-





       3. Funeral Expenses            `10,000/-             `10,000/-
      4. Expectancy of Life          `10,000/-             `10,000/-
         of deceased
      5. Loss of Consortium          `10,000/-             `10,000/-
         Total                     `3,55,458/-           `5,92,600/-

8. The overall compensation is enhanced from `3,55,458/- to `5,92,600/-. The enhanced compensation of `2,37,142/- shall

carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the enhanced amount in this Court.

9. The Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the compensation with the Registrar General of this Court within six weeks from today.

10. Statutory amount shall also be refunded.

11. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

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