Seema Dutta & Ors. vs Ritesh Jha & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 5008 Del

$~20
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%             Judgment delivered on: 30th October, 2013


+      MAC.APP. 3/2013

       SEEMA DUTTA & ORS.                         ..... Appellants
                      Represented by: Mr. M.K. Sinha and
                      Ms. Vishakha, Advs.
               versus
       RITESH JHA & ORS.                                  ..... Respondents
                          Represented by: Mr. Pramod Bahuguna and
                          Ms. Kavita, Advs. for R1.
                          Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Adv. for R3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 22.09.2012, whereby ld. Tribunal while awarding the compensation amount has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased.

2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the deceased left behind his legal heirs as under:

              a)    Seema Dutta (Wife)           -   42
              b)    Alok Dutta (Son)             -   28
              c)    Amol Dutta (Son)             -   21
              d)    Tushar Dutta (Son)           -   19
              e)    Smt. Chun Gi Dutta
                    (Mother)                     -   70

3. He submits that it is specifically mentioned in the affidavit filed by Seema Dutta, widow of the deceased that her family were fully dependent upon the income of the deceased / husband. Therefore, ld. Counsel has erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses. He further submits that keeping in view the number of the dependants in the family, ld. Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd.

4. I note, nowhere in the affidavit filed by Seema Dutta, widow of the deceased stated that her three sons had some difficulty and were not earning. It is not even stated that whether they were pursuing their studies or sitting at home on account of some difficulty or disability. Therefore, the bald statement of the wife of the deceased has no bearing.

5. Moreover, ld. Tribunal has opined that family members of the deceased, besides his mother and wife, there were three major children aged 21, 28 and 19 years and most of the children are of the age of majority and settled. Therefore, ld. Tribunal has considered the widow, mother and the younger son of 19 years as dependents of the deceased. Accordingly, 1/3rd of the amount was directed to be deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased.

6. In view of the discussion above, I do not find any discrepancy in the order passed by the ld. Tribunal.

7. Instant appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

SURESH KAIT, J OCTOBER 30, 2013/jg