Kaushalya Devi & Ors. vs L.Nk. Rajesh Kumar & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 5873 Del

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                 Date of decision: 28th September, 2012
+       MAC. APP. 723/2011
        KAUSHALYA DEVI & ORS.                           ..... Appellants
                       Through: Mr.Satish             Kumar      Bhatti,
                                Advocate
                versus

        L.Nk. RAJESH KUMAR & ANR.            ..... Respondents
                       Through: Ms.Shilpi, Advocate for R-1 to
                                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 `4,23,000/-

awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of the Appellants for the death of Radhakant Sah, a motor mechanic, who died in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 28.06.2002.

2. During the inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that the deceased was earning `15,000/- per month. The Appellants produced the income tax return to show that the deceased's annual income was `54,955/-.

3. Since the deceased was a bachelor, the Claims Tribunal deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses and applied

a multiplier of 11 to compute the loss of dependency. The loss of dependency was computed as `3,03,000/-.

4. The Claims Tribunal further awarded a sum of `1,00,000/-

towards loss of love and affection and a sum of `10,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss to estate to compute the overall compensation as `4,23,000/-

5. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the deceased had responsibility of two younger sisters aged 16 and 13 years at the time of his unfortunate death. The Appellant No.3 was also handicapped. It is urged that in the circumstances, the Claims Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.

6. Learned counsel for the Appellants argued that the appropriate multiplier at the age of 50 years, that is, Appellant No.1's age would be 13 instead of 11 taken by the Claims Tribunal.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents contends that overall compensation of `4,23,000/- is just and reasonable. The compensation of `1,00,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection is excessive and exorbitant.

8. At the time of the accident, the deceased's father, namely, Chandrika Sah (Appellant No.2) was alive. He died after filing of the Claim Petition. It is borne out from the record that Appellant No.3 was handicapped and was aged only 16 years at

the time of accident and Appellant No.4 was aged only 13 years. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the deceased also had responsibility of his younger siblings. Thus, I would make deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses as against 1/2 taken by the Claims Tribunal.

9. There was no evidence of future prospects. The deceased was a self employed person. On the basis of 'Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors'., 2012 (4) SCALE 559, the Appellants are entitled to an addition of 30% towards inflation.

10. The age of Appellant No.1 is 50 years, therefore, the appropriate multiplier as per 'Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.', (2009) 6 SCC 121, would be 13 instead of 11 applied by the Claims Tribunal.

11. The loss of dependency thus comes to `6,19,159/-.(54955+30% x 2/3 x 13).

12. The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of `1,00,000/-

towards loss of love and affection. Loss of love and affection can never be measured in terms of money. When full compensation is awarded towards loss of dependency, only a nominal sum is awarded towards loss of love and affection. Thus, uniformity has to be adopted by the Courts while granting non-pecuniary damages. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627

granted only ` 25,000/- (in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and affection. Thus, I would reduce the compensation under this head from `1,00,000/- to ` 25,000/-.

13. In view of the above discussion, the overall compensation comes to `6,64,159/-. Thus, the compensation is enhanced by `2,41,159/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment.

14. The Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi within six weeks.

15. Fifty percent of the enhanced compensation shall be payable to the First Appellant. Rest 25% each shall go to the Appellants No.3 and 4.

16. Seventy percent of the enhanced compensation payable to Appellants No.1, 3 and 4 shall be held in fixed deposit for a period of two years, four years and six years in equal proportion. Rest shall be released to them on deposit.

17. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

18. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 28, 2012 v