Delhi High Court
Urmila Khairwal & Ors vs Liyakat Ali & Ors on 28 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:28th May, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 393/2012
URMILA KHAIRWAL & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Ms.J.S.Kanwar, Advocate
versus
LIYAKAT ALI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellants who are the legal heirs of deceased Tej Singh
are aggrieved by an order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the
Claims Tribunal whereby a detailed accident report (DAR) was
treated as a Petition u/s 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act and a
compensation of `17,30,000/- was awarded in favour of the
Appellants, which according to them is not just compensation.
2. The salary certificate available at page 30 of the TCR showing a
gross salary of `16,593/- was not disputed by the
Respondent/Insurance Company. The deceased was aged 45
years and three month on the date of the accident. As per Sarla
Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6
SCC 121 the appropriate multiplier is '14' where the deceased
is aged between 41 to 45 years and '13' where the deceased
between 46 to 50 years. Since the deceased was 45 years and
three months and his birth was nearer 45 years, the appropriate
multiplier was '14'. The Claims Tribunal while making an
award deducted 1/4th of the compensation on the ground that
Appellant No.1 was to get family pension as per the
Government rules. Vide letter Ex.P-1 the Assistant Accounts-
Officer of the Transport Department informed the Court that the
deceased widow/legal heir would be entitled to a pension of `
4,475/- + DA upto 13.10.2020 and a pension of `2635/- per
month + DA after 13.10.2020.
3. In view of Delhi Transport Corporation v. Meena Chaturvedi
& Ors., 122 (2005) DLT 75 (FB), the issue is no longer res
intgra that the family pension is not required to be deducted
while computing the payment on account of loss of dependency.
The Claims Tribunal erred in making a deduction of 1/4 th
towards the family pension.
4. The compensation towards loss of dependency works out as
(`15,723x12-`2,354(income tax) +30% x3/4x14) `25,43,295/-.
In addition the Appellants are entitled to a sum of `25,000/-
towards loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- each towards
loss of consortium, loss to estate and funeral expenses. Thus
the total compensation comes to `25,98,282/- (`25,43,295/- +
`55,000/-)
5. The enhanced compensation of `8,68,295/- shall carry interest
at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of treating DAR as
an application under Section 166 of the Act upto the date of
payment and shall enure for the benefit of the Appellant No.1.
6. 90% of the enhanced compensation along with proportionate
interest shall be held in Fixed Deposit in favour of Appellant
No.1 for a period of 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 years in equal proportion.
7. Rest of the amount along with proportionate interest shall be
released immediately on deposit.
8. The Respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation within six weeks.
9. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
10. No costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 28, 2012
mr
