Delhi High Court
Chander Kala And Anr. vs Satpal And Ors. on 11 September, 2013
Author: Suresh Kait
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 11th September, 2013
+ MAC.APP. 743/2012
CHANDER KALA AND ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate.
Versus
SATPAL AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ram Aashrey, Advocate
for Respondent No.3/Insurance
Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants for
enhancement of compensation amount against the impugned award
dated 02.03.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a total
compensation as under:-
"1. Loss of dependency (3110X12X13) = Rs. 4,85,160/-
2. Loss of Love and affection = Rs. 25,000/-
3. For funeral expenses = Rs. 10,000/-
4. Loss of estate = Rs. 10,000/-
_____________________________________________________
Total Rs. 5,30,160/-
(Rupees Five lacs Thirty
thousand and One hundred sixty only)
_______________________________________________________"
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants/claimants has argued that at the time of accident, the age of
the deceased was 29 years, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to
have applied the multiplier of 17. He submitted that keeping in view
the age of the mother of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has
wrongly applied the multiplier of 13.
3. To support his contention, learned counsel has relied upon a
case of P.S.Somanathan & Ors. Vs. District Insurance Officer &
Anr., 2011 ACJ 737, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-
23. The High Court unfortunately took a very technical
view in the matter of applying the multiplier. The High
Court cannot keep out of its consideration the claim of
the daughter of the first claimant, since the daughter was
impleaded, and was 49 years of age. Admittedly, the
deceased was looking after the entire family. In
determining the age of the mother, the High Court should
have accepted the age of the mother at 65, as given in the
claim petition, since there is no controversy on that. By
accepting the age of mother at 67, the High Court further
reduced the multiplier from 6 to 5, even if we accept the
reasoning of the High Court to be correct. The reasoning
of the High Court is not correct in view of the ratio in
Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC). Following the same
the High Court should have proceeded to compute the
compensation on the age of the deceased."
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent No.3/Insurance Company has submitted that taking into
consideration the age of the mother of the deceased, the learned
Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 13.
5. I do not find any substance in the submission made by the
learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company.
6. Therefore, keeping in view the dictum of the Apex Court in the
case of P.S. Somanathan (supra), the multiplier of 17 should have
been applied by the learned Tribunal as the deceased was aged 29
years at the time of the accident. Moreover, in the case of Sarla
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. 2009 ACJ
1298, the Supreme Court has held that while applying the multiplier,
the age of the deceased has to be considered.
7. In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the age of
the deceased, I apply the multiplier of 17.
8. The second ground argued by the learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants is that the deceased had left behind two
dependents, i.e., widowed mother and unmarried sister. Despite that,
the learned Tribunal has erred in deducting one half of the income
towards personal expenses of the deceased whereas the learned
Tribunal should have deducted one third of the income towards the
same.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company
has relied upon the case of Sarla Verma (supra), wherein the
Supreme Court has held as under:-
"15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a
different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally,
50% is deducted as personal and living expenses,
because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to
spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the
possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which
event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is
likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to
the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income
and will not be considered as a dependant and the
mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the
absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters
will not be considered as dependents, because they will
either be independent and earning, or married, or be
dependant on the father. Thus even if the deceased is
survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would
be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be
treated as the personal and living expenses of the
bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family.
However, where family of the bachelor is large and
dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case
where he has a widowed mother and large number of
younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal
and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and
contribution to the family will be taken as two-third."
10. Keeping in view the dictum of Sarla Verma (supra) and the
fact that the deceased was a bachelor at the time of the accident, I am
of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly
deducted one half of the income towards personal expenses of the
deceased.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the
compensation of Rs.25,000/- granted by the learned Tribunal on
account of loss of love and affection is on lower side. He submitted
that keeping in view the case of Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh,
(2013) Scale 563, it should have been Rs.1,00,000/- instead of
Rs.25,000/-.
12. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid dictum, I
grant Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of loss of love and
affection.
13. Consequently, the compensation amount would come as under:-
Sr. No. On account of Granted by the Granted by this
ld. Tribunal Court.
1. Loss of dependency Rs.4,85,160/- Rs.6,34,440/-
2. Loss of Love and Rs. 25,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
affection
3. For funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/-
4. Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs.5,30,160/- Rs.7,54,440/-
14. Resultantly, the enhanced compensation amount comes to
Rs.2,24,280/- (Rs.7,54,440 - Rs.5,30,160/-).
15. Needless to state that the enhanced amount shall also carry
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition till realization.
16. The respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the enhanced compensation amount with the Registrar General of this
court within four weeks from today.
17. On deposit the Registrar General is directed to release the
amount in favour of the appellants/ claimants in terms of the
impugned award dated 02.03.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal.
18. Accordingly, Instant appeal is allowed on the above terms.
SURESH KAIT, J.
SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
sb
