Amarjeet Singh vs Rajinder Kumar & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 5369 Del

$~16
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                    Date of decision: 7th September, 2012

+        MAC. APP. No.457/2012

         AMARJEET SINGH                                ..... Appellant
                      Through:           Mr. Jatinder Kumar, Advocate

                        versus

         RAJINDER KUMAR & ORS           ..... Respondents
                     Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate
                              for R-3

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL

                                 JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of ` 54,600/-

awarded in favour of the Appellant for the death of Gursimran

Singh, who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on

3.12.2009.

2. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver/owner or the

Insurance Company, the finding of negligence has attained

finality.

3. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the

deceased's father had disappeared 20 years back and his

whereabouts were not known; his mother predeceased him on

18.9.2007. The Claims Tribunal opined that the Appellant

being maternal uncle of deceased Gursimran Singh was not

financially dependent on the deceased. Thus, following the

judgment of this Court in Keith Rowe v. Prashant Sagar-II

(2010) ACC-64, the Claims Tribunal awarded 15% of the

deceased income towards loss to estate to the Appellant.

4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the

deceased and the Appellant were residing together at C-227A,

L-Pocket, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. The Appellant was aged 67

years at the time of the accident and was being looked after by

the deceased. Thus, full compensation ought to have been

awarded in favour of the Appellant towards loss of dependency.

5. I have, before me, the document Ex. PW 1/1, which is a copy of

the voter's identity card issued by the Election Commission of

India. It has the same address as that of the deceased. In his

cross-examination, the Appellant stated that his younger

brothers were paying him for his monthly expenses and he

would eat his meals at the Gurdwara. He also admitted that he

was getting old age pension of ` 1,000/- per month from the

Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

6. Considering the peculiar facts of this case, it can be said that the

Appellant was partially dependent on the deceased Gursimran

Singh as he was residing with him. In these circumstances, the

Appellant should have been granted compensation to the extent

of 30% of the deceased's income towards loss of estate. The

compensation under this head thus comes to `79,200/- (4400 x

12 x 5 x 30%) as against a sum of `39,600/- awarded by the

Claims Tribunal.

7. The compensation of `10,000/- awarded towards loss of love

and affection and `5000/- awarded towards funeral expenses is

raised to `25000/- and `10,000/- respectively. Thus, the

compensation comes to `1,14,200/-

8. Accordingly, the compensation stands enhanced by `59,600/-

which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of

filing of the Petition till its deposit with the Claims Tribunal.

The Respondent No.3 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.

Ltd. is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along

with interest with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks. 75%

of the enhanced compensation shall be held in fixed deposit for

a period of two years and three years in equal proportion. Rest

of the amount shall be released on deposit.

9. Notice of deposit shall be sent to the Appellant by the

Respondent Insurance Company as also by the Claims Tribunal.

10. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

11. Pending applications stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 07, 2012 rs