Delhi High Court
Ravinder Kaur & Ors vs Uoi & Ors. on 24 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 24th May, 2012
+ MAC APP 50/2004
RAVINDER KAUR & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv.
Ms. Suman N. Rawat, Advocate
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Saqib, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `4,83,000/-
awarded for the death of Manjit Singh, who died in a motor
accident which occurred on 12.08.1995
2. Deceased Manjit Singh was working as Air Craft Technician in
the Indian Airlines. As per the copy of the Salary Certificate
placed on record during enquiry before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) it was proved that the
deceased was getting a salary of ` 5792/- per month. He
suffered fatal injuries while he was returning to his home on a
two wheeler No.DDN 7409, he was struck by a Army vehicle
No. 89D77888M which was driven by the Fourth Respondent
and owned by the First and the Second Respondent.
3. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the
accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent
driving of the truck by the Fourth Respondent. The Claims
Tribunal took the deceased's income to be `4500/- per month;
deducted one-third towards the personal and living expenses;
applied the multiplier of '13' to compute the loss of financial
dependency as `4,68,000/-. A sum of `5,000/- was added
towards funeral expenses and `10,000/- towards loss of love
and affection to compute the overall compensation of
`4,83,000/-.
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the
deceased's income ought to have been considered as `5792/-
per month as per the Salary Certificate placed on record. There
should have been an addition of 30% towards the future
prospects, considering that the deceased was aged 46 years on
the date of the accident; deduction towards the personal and
living expenses should have been one-fourth as the Fourth
Appellant (the deceased's father), who died during the
proceedings before the Claims Tribunal must also be considered
as a dependent on the deceased, in the absence of any evidence
to the contrary.
5. As far as the deceased's income is concerned, the same must be
taken to be established in view of the Salary Certificate placed
on record. Though, no witness from Indian Airlines was
summoned to specifically prove the same. Since the Salary
Certificate was not disputed and the deceased was proved to be
in service of Indian Airlines, I would accept the same.
6. In Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, it was laid down that subject to any
evidence to the contrary, father should not be considered to be
dependent on the deceased son. Since no evidence has been
produced to prove that the deceased's father was financially
dependent on him, he cannot be considered as a dependent.
7. Thus, there were three dependents i.e. widow, a son and a
daughter. The deduction towards the personal and living
expenses, in this view of the matter, would be one-third as taken
by the Claims Tribunal.
8. The deceased was aged 46 years and was in settled employment
with Indian Airlines, the Appellants were entitled to an addition
of 30% on account of future prospects on the basis of Sarla
Verma (supra).
9. In view of the above discussion, the loss of dependency comes
to `7,50,405/- (5792/- x 12 - 2900/- (income tax as per
Assessment Year 1996-97 for salaried employees) + 30% x 2/3
x 13).
10. The Claims Tribunal did not award any compensation towards
the loss of consortium. Considering that this accident took
place in the year 1995, I would make a provision of `5,000/-
towards the same. I would raise the compensation of `10,000/-
towards loss of love and affection to `15,000/- and would
further award a sum of `5,000/- towards loss to estate in
addition to a sum of `5,000/- towards funeral expenses awarded
by the Claims Tribunal.
11. The overall compensation thus comes to `7,80,405/-
(`7,50,405/- + 30,000/-).
12. The enhanced compensation of `2,97,405/- shall carry interest
@ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till the
date of the impugned judgment i.e. 22.08.2003 and @ 7.5% per
annum from 23.08.2003 till the date of payment.
13. First and the Second Respondents being owner of the Army
Truck No. 89D77888M and the driver's employer are directed
to deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest in the
name of the First Appellant in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
New Delhi.
14. The enhanced compensation along with interest shall enure for
the benefit of the First Appellant and shall be released forthwith
on deposit.
15. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 24, 2012
vk
