Delhi High Court
New India Asurance Co. Ltd. vs Shalini Upadhyay & Ors. on 30 November, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$ 14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30th November, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 299/2012
NEW INDIA ASURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate.
Versus
SHALINI UPADHYAY & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate for the
Respondents No.1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `15,30,944/- awarded by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) in favour of
the Respondents No.1 and 2 for the death of their mother Smt. Vimla
Devi who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 17.12.2008.
2. The finding on negligence has not been challenged by the Appellant
Insurance Company; thus the same has attained finality.
3. It is admitted case of the parties that deceased Vimla Devi, at the time of
the accident, was aged 54 years. She was working as a UDC in Delhi
Milk Scheme(DMS). It was proved on record that she was earning
`17,113/- per month. It was also proved that Respondent No.2 Sudhir
Upadhayay, deceased's Vimla Devi's son had started working as a
Journalist and was thus gainfully employed. The Claims Tribunal relying
on Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6
SCC 121, deducted 1/3rd of the deceased's income towards her personal
and living expenses and applied a multiplier of 11 to compute the loss of
dependency.
4. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant is that
since deceased's son was earning, he was not financially dependent on
the deceased. Thus, the deduction towards personal and living expenses
ought to have been 1/2 instead of 1/3rd made by the Claims Tribunal.
5. I have before me the Trial Court record. Respondents No.1 and 2's father
died in harness and their mother deceased Vimla Devi was appointed in
DMS on compassionate ground. She also lost her life in this unfortunate
accident. At the time of the accident, the First Respondent was a little
less than 18 years, whereas the Respondent No.2 had just got an
employment. The Claims Tribunals and Courts may not lose sight of the
fact that the young children, even if they have started working, remain
dependent on their parents for long for their financial needs. In any case,
deceased Vimla Devi who was already 54 years would not have spent
more than 1/3rd of her income towards her personal and living expenses.
In the circumstances, the Claims Tribunal's finding in making deduction
of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses cannot be faulted.
6. The Appeal, therefore, has to fail; it is accordingly dismissed.
7. Statutory amount of `25,000/-, if any, shall be refunded to the Appellant
Insurance Company.
8. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 30, 2012
pst
