Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Mahesh John Peter & Anr. vs Raj Kumar & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 5693 Del

Citation : 2012 Latest Caselaw 5693 Del
Judgement Date : 20 September, 2012

Delhi High Court
Mahesh John Peter & Anr. vs Raj Kumar & Ors. on 20 September, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~ 2
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Decided on: 20th September, 2012
+       MAC.APP. 1011/2012

        MAHESH JOHN PETER & ANR.                ..... Appellants
                     Through  Mr.Manish Maini, Advocate

                     versus

        RAJ KUMAR & ORS.                              .... Respondents
                    Through           Mr.K.L.Nandwani, Advocate for R-3
                                      Insurance Company

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

                                 JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `4,60,000/-

awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of the Appellants for the death of George Peter who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 21.11.2007.

2. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the Truck bearing No.HR-38-BG-2764 by Respondent No.1 which was owned by Respondent No.2 and insured with Respondent No.3.

3. It was proved that the deceased was earning `5,000/- per month. The Claims Tribunal applied the multiplier of 14 (as per the age of the deceased's mother) to compute the loss of dependency as `4,20,000/- (5000 x 12 x 1/2 x14).

4. The sole contention raised by the Appellants is that even in the absence of any evidence with regard to the future prospects, the Appellants were entitled to an addition in the deceased's salary to the extent 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.

5. I would agree with the learned counsel for the Appellants. The loss of dependency, therefore, comes to `5,46,000/- (60,000 + 30% x 1/2 x

14) instead of `4,20,000/- .

6. The compensation is thus, enhanced by `1,26,000/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment.

7. The enhanced compensation shall be deposited with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks.

8. Sixty percent of the enhanced compensation shall be held in Fixed Deposit for a period of two years and four years in equal proportion. Rest shall be released on deposit.

9. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

10. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 v

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter