Delhi High Court
Sudesh Mahajan & Others vs Anil Azad & Ors on 5 September, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 5th September, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.737/2011
SUDESH MAHAJAN & OTHERS .... Appellants
Through: Mr.Bhupesh Narula, Advocate
Versus
ANIL AZAD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Pradeep Gaur & Mr.Amit
Gaur, Advocates for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `2,38,255/-
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Claims
Tribunal) in favour of the Appellant for the death of Raj Pal
Mahajan who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred
on 28.11.2005.
2. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver, owner or the insurer
of offending vehicle, the finding on negligence has attained
finality.
3. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the
Appellant:-
(i) After his retirement, the deceased was working as an
Accountant. As per Income Tax Return(ITR) Ex.PW1/13
and computation of income filed along with ITR for the
A.Y. 2005-06, the Appellant had an income of `67,589/-
from pension and `2,51,277/- from his job as an
accountant in addition to interest income of `35,766/-. It
is stated that income from professional work and pension
should have been taken into consideration
(ii) The compensation awarded towards non-pecuniary
damages is on the lower side.
(iii) The deceased had four dependants including two married
daughters; deductions towards personal and living
expenses should have been 1/4 instead of 1/3 made by the
Claims Tribunal.
4. On the other hand, Mr.Pradeep Gaur, learned counsel for
Respondent No.2 National Insurance Company states that the
deceased's son was financially not dependent and that two
daughters were already married. Therefore, the deduction
towards personal and living expenses ought to have been 50%
instead of 1/3 taken by the Claims Tribunal.
5. On the basis of the Income Tax Return Ex.PW1/13, it is proved
that the deceased had an income `3,18,866/- excluding the
income from interest on the NSCs.
6. Appellant No.2 Sanjeev Mahajan was working as a Salesman
and had an income of `4,000/- per month, thus he was also
partially depended on the deceased. Apart from this, the
deceased had responsibility of two married daughters to give
them conventional gifts on festivals. In the circumstances, the
deduction of 1/3 taken by the Claims Tribunal cannot be said to
be on the lower side. The deduction of 1/3 was, in the
circumstances, just and reasonable.
7. In view of the above discussion, the loss of dependency comes
to `9,46,220/-( `318866/- - 35,000/-(Income Tax) x 2/3 x 5).
8. I would further make a provision of `25,000/- towards loss of
love and affection and `10,000/- each towards loss of
consortium, loss to estate and funeral expenses.
9. The compensation is thus enhanced by `7,62,965/- which shall
carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of this
Appeal till its payment. 10% of the enhanced compensation
shall be payable to each of the Appellants No.2 & 3 and
Respondent No.3. Rest 70% shall enure for the benefit of
Appellant No.1. 80% of the compensation awarded to the
Appellant No.1 shall be held in fixed deposit for a period of two
years and three years in equal proportion and rest shall be
released to her on deposit. The compensation payable to
Appellants No.2 & 3 and Respondent No.3 shall be released on
deposit.
10. The enhanced compensation of `7,62,965/- along with interest
shall be deposited in the name of the Appellants in UCO Bank,
Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi Branch within six weeks.
11. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
12. Pending applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 05, 2012/v
