Delhi High Court
Smt. Bishekha Devi & Anr. vs Mohd. Afsar & Ors. on 30 October, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30th October, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 1087/2012
SMT. BISHEKHA DEVI & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Adv.
versus
MOHD. AFSAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.17279/2012 (delay)
The delay of one day in filing the Appeal is condoned.
The Application is allowed.
MAC. APP. 1087/2012
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `8,34,000/- awarded
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour
of the Appellants, the parents of the deceased Rahul Kumar, who died in
a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 20.11.2010.
2. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that the
deceased was working with a private company Achchi Paushak
Emporium and was getting a salary of `12,000/- per month. The Claims
Tribunal accepted the deceased's income as `12,000/- per month,
deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses and applied the
multiplier of 11 to compute the loss of dependency.
3. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellants:-
(i) The deceased was working with Achchi Paushak Emporium for the
last 1½ years. The Court should have granted future prospects by
making 50% addition in the income.
(ii) The Claims Tribunal took the average age of the parents to apply
the multiplier. As per Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 the multiplier is
to be selected as per the age of the deceased's mother.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent Insurance
Company states that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable.
5. During the course of arguments it was conceded that Achchi Paushak
Emporium where the deceased was employed was a girl's Boutique
where 3-4 persons were working. Admittedly, no evidence was produced
by the Appellants to show that the deceased had good future prospects in
Achchi Paushak Emporium. In the absence of any evidence with regard
to good future prospects, addition of 50% could not have been made.
6. On the other hand, the Claims Tribunal ought to have made an addition of
30% towards inflation on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4)
SCALE 559.
7. As per the Ration Card Ex.PW-1/2, the deceased's mother was aged 42
years on 01.01.2002. Thus, on the date of accident, i.e. 20.11.2010 the
deceased's mother was about 50 years and 11 months. Since her age is
near 51 years, the appropriate multiplier would be 11 only which has
been applied by the Claims Tribunal.
8. The loss of dependency thus comes to `10,29,600/- (12,000/- + 30% x 12
x 1/2 x 11) as against `7,92,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
9. The compensation is thus enhanced by ` 2,37,600/-.
10. This accident took place in the year 2010 and the Claim Petition was
decided in May, 2012. The interest rate on long term deposits are in the
vicinity of 9% per annum. Thus, the award of interest @ 9% per annum
was just and reasonable. Similar view was taken by this Court in
Dhaneshwari & Another v. Tajeshwar Singh & Others, MAC. APP
997/2011 decided on 19.3.2012.
11. Thus, on the enhanced compensation the Appellants would be entitled to
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till
its payment.
12. The enhanced compensation of ` 2,37,600/- along with interest shall be
deposited with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks and shall be equally
apportioned amongst the Appellants.
13. Seventy five percent of the compensation awarded shall be held in fixed
deposit for a period of three years; rest shall be released to them.
14. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
15. Deficiency, if any, in the Court fees shall be made up within four weeks.
16. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 30, 2012
vk
