Delhi High Court
Rajender & Anr. vs Sepy. M.S. Reddy & Anr. on 23 November, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 23rd November, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 555-556/2005
RAJENDER & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Peeush Sharma, Advocate
versus
SEPY. M.S. REDDY & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of ` 2,41,500/- awarded
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of
the Appellants for the death of their son Monu (aged 20 years and a
bachelor at the time accident), in a motor vehicle accident which occurred
on 17.11.1999.
2. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that the
deceased Monu was a fruit vendor and was earning `70/-, ` 80/- & ` 100/-
per day.
3. In the absence of any cogent evidence with regard to the deceased's
income, the Claims Tribunal took the deceased's income as per the
minimum wages, that is, ` 2350/- per month; deducted 50% towards
personal and living expenses as the deceased was a bachelor; and applied
the multiplier of 15 to compute the loss of dependency.
4. The Claims Tribunal observed that the deceased would provide support to
his parents for a period of 5 or 6 years and then he will raise his family.
Thus, the deduction of 50% towards personal and living expenses is just
and reasonable. The Claims Tribunal applied the multiplier as per the
second schedule to compute the loss of dependency.
5. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants that deduction towards
personal and living expenses was practically more than 50% which resulted
into an award of meagre compensation towards loss of dependency. It is
also urged that no compensation was awarded towards loss to estate.
6. I have before me the Trial Court record. The Claims Tribunal rightly
awarded the compensation on the basis of the minimum wages, but fell into
error in making a deduction of 50% twice.
7. In the absence of any evidence with regard to the future prospects, the
Appellants were entitled to an addition of 30% towards inflation on the
basis of the Supreme Court Judgment in Santosh Devi v. National
Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559.
8. The second Appellant, that is, the deceased's mother as per her own
affidavit was aged 44 years on the date of the accident, and the appropriate
multiplier as per Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121, would be 14.
9. The loss of dependency thus comes to ` 2,56,620/-(2350+30% x 1/2 x 12
x 14).
10. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of ` 20,000/- towards loss of love
and affection and ` 10,000/- towards funeral expenses which was just and
reasonable. Keeping in view the fact that the accident took place in the
year 1999, the Appellants are also entitled to a sum of ` 5,000/- towards
loss to estate.
11. The overall compensation comes to ` 2,91,620/- as against ` 2,41,500/-
awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
12. The compensation thus stands enhanced by ` 50,120/- which shall carry
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its
payment.
13. The First Appellant has died during the pendency of the Appeal; the
learned counsel for the Appellant urges that they shall file an amended
memo of parties within one week.
14. The entire enhanced compensation shall enure for the benefit of the
Second Respondent. The enhanced compensation shall be released to her
on deposit.
15. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along
with interest with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks.
16. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
17. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 23, 2012
v
