Delhi High Court
Anjana Pujara & Ors. vs Bharat Co-Operative Society Ltd. ... on 30 March, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 16th March, 2012
Pronounced on: 30th March, 2012
+ MAC APP. 553/2006
ANJANA PUJARA & ORS. .... Appellants
Through: Mr. M.K. Tiwari, Adv.
versus
BHARAT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. & ANR.
.... Respondents
Through: Mr. V.C. Jha, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of ` 4,54,000/-
awarded for the death of Yashpal Pujara who died in a motor
accident which occurred on 18.03.1998.
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. During enquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the
Claims Tribunal) it was claimed that the deceased Yashpal
Pujara was a Partner in Manoj Cable Industries. He had an
income of `3500/- to `4,000/- per month from the said business.
He was working as a Commission Agent for M/s. Unique
Trading Company I-7/32, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi since March,
1997 and had an income of ` 4500/- per month as a Commission
Agent. The deceased was not an Income Tax Assessee,
although, any income beyond `40,000/- per annum i.e. ` 3333/-
per month was taxable.
4. The Appellant's case that the deceased had an income from
commission from Unique Trading Company was challenged on
the ground that a loan of `1,79,000/- was given by the deceased
to Unique Trading Company and in fact, the amount could have
been paid by Unique Trading Company towards liability of
interest. It was proved on record that the deceased's children
were studying in a public school in the year 1998 and a fee of
over ` 3,000/- per quarter was being paid for each of the two
children.
5. Although, the deceased was not paying any income tax, the
Claims Tribunal in the facts and circumstances assessed the
deceased's income to be `3500/- per month. In the absence of
any Income Tax Return being filed and after taking all the
circumstances into consideration, this was the best which the
Claims Tribunal could have done. Since the deceased was not
being assessed to Income Tax and in the absence of any cogent
evidence in respect of the deceased's income, I would accept
the deceased's income to be `3500/- per month as taken by the
Claims Tribunal.
6. As per Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, the deceased's mother would be taken
as a dependent and therefore deduction towards the personal
and living expenses would be one-fourth instead of one-third as
taken by the Claims Tribunal. The appropriate multiplier would
be '15' as against '16' adopted by the Claims Tribunal.
7. Thus, the loss of dependency following Sarla Verma (supra)
would come to `4,72,500/- (3500/- x 3/4 x 12 x 15).
8. Considering that this accident took place in the year 1998, I
would enhance a sum of `5,000/- awarded towards loss of Love
and Affection to `15,000/-. I would further award a sum of `
10,000/- towards Loss to Estate.
9. The overall compensation is recomputed as under:-
Sl. No. Compensation under various Awarded by
heads this Court
1. Loss of Dependency ` 4,72,500/-
2. Loss of Love & Affection `15,000/-
3. Loss to Estate ` 10,000/-
4. Loss of Consortium ` 5,000/-
Total ` 5,02,500/-
10. The overall compensation is thus enhanced from ` 4,54,000/- to
` 5,02,500/-.
11. It is urged that interest @5.5% per annum awarded by the
Claims Tribunal was on the lower side. I would raise the same
to @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till
the date of payment in this regard.
12. The shortfall in the compensation payable shall be made up and
deposited with the Registrar General of this Court within six
weeks.
13. Since this accident occurred almost 14 years back, the enhanced
amount along with interest shall be released in favour of the
first Appellant immediately on deposit.
14. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 30, 2012
vk
