Smt. Bimla Devi & Ors. vs Baljeet Singh & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 3318 Del

$~R-44

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Date of decision:17th May, 2012
+       FAO. No.880/2003

        SMT. BIMLA DEVI & ORS.
                                                    ..... Appellant
                           Through:     Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate

                    Versus


        BALJEET SINGH & ORS.                       ..... Respondents
                      Through:          Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for
                                        Respondent No.3 Insurance
                                        Company.

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

                           JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of ` 7,53,100/-

awarded by the Claims Tribunal for the death of Ramesh Chand who died in an accident which occurred on 19.06.1999.

2. Since there is no Appeal by the owner/insurer of the vehicle, the finding on negligence has become final between the parties.

3. The contentions raised on behalf of the Appellants are:

(i) The deceased had an income of ` 2,000/- per month while working on part-time basis with M/s. Oasis International. A certificate Mark B was proved in this regard, but the same was not considered for grant of loss of dependency.

(ii) Since the number of dependents were six, deduction towards the personal and living expenses should have been taken as 1/4th instead of 1/3rd taken by the Claims Tribunal.

(iii) The compensation awarded towards the non-

pecuniary damages is on the lower side.

4. On the other hand, it is urged by the learned counsel for the Respondent Insurance Company that the Claims Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 17, the same should have been 16 as per Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.

5. I have perused the certificate Mark B. PW1 Smt. Bimla Devi deposed that her husband was working in an export company, namely, Al-Nafees, Karol Bagh and was getting salary as per the certificate Mark A. She deposed that her deceased husband was also working for M/s. Oasis International, Friends Colony, New Delhi and was getting a salary as per the certificate Mark B. Certificate Mark A was proved by examining Sunil Kumar Sharma, an employee of Al-Nafees Frozen Foods Exports Ltd.

The certificate Mark B was not proved. No witness was summoned from M/s. Oasis International.

6. Admittedly, the deceased was not paying any Income Tax. If we add `2,000/- per month in the deceased's income, it will come to `5,520/-. Any income beyond `50,000/- was taxable in the A.Y. 1999-2000. Moreover, in the absence of the certificate Mark B not being proved, the Claims Tribunal rightly declined to rely on the same.

7. It was established that the deceased had six dependents. As per Sarla Verma(supra), there would be deduction of 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses and the appropriate multiplier would be '16' instead of '17'. The deceased was in stable employment, therefore, the Claims Tribunal rightly granted 50% towards future prospects. The loss of dependency thus comes to `7,60,320/-(`3520 + 50% X 3/4 X 12 X 16).

8. The compensation of `35,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages considering that the accident occurred in the year 1999 except towards loss of love and affection seems to be in order. The compensation towards loss of love and affection is increased from `10,000/- to `20,000/-.

9. The overall compensation is thus enhanced from ` 7,53,100/- to `8,05,320/-.

10. There is an enhancement of ` 52,220/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the Petition till its deposit. The enhanced amount would enure for the benefit of the First Appellant which shall be deposited by

the Respondent No.3 Insurance Company in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch in the name of the First Appellant within six weeks.

11. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MAY 17, 2012 pst