Delhi High Court
Chit Narayan Yadav & Anr vs Orix Auto & Business Solutions Ltd ... on 17 April, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 17th April, 2014
+ MAC.APP.No.307/2012
CHIT NARAYAN YADAV & ANR ..... Appellants
Represented by: Mr. O.P.Mannie, Advocate.
Versus
ORIX AUTO & BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD & ORS.
..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Saurabh Kumar Tuteja,
Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 17.11.2011,
whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation as under:-
" Loss of dependency : Rs. 2,91,480/-
Loss of Funeral Expenses : Rs. 2,500/-
Loss of Estate : Rs. 2,500/-
Total : Rs.2,96,480/-"
Interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum was also awarded by the
learned Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization
of the amount.
2. Mr.O.P.Mannie, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
submits that the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act'). On the date of the
accident, the deceased was aged 22 years and was earning Rs.39,000/- per
annum, however, the learned Tribunal has not decided the claim petition
strictly as per Section 163-A of MV Act by applying the Second Schedule of
the MV Act.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal erred in
applying the multiplier of 14 as per the age of the mother of the deceased,
whereas keeping in view the age of the deceased, i.e., 22 years on the date of
the accident; the appropriate multiplier would have been 17 in this case.
4. He further submits that as per the Second Schedule of the MV Act, the
learned Tribunal ought to have deducted one-third of the income of the
deceased towards personal expensed instead of one-half.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
record.
6. First of all, I will take up the issue of multiplier.
7. The issue of multiplier has been dealt with by this Court in the case of
Mohd. Hasnain & Ors. Vs. Jagram Meena & Ors. bearing MAC. APP. No.
152/2014, decided on 24.03.2014, wherein held as under:-
"21. The maximum value of the multiplier is fixed at „18‟,
which is fairly representing the purchasing capacity of a victim in
a stable economy. In the ascertainment of purchasing capacity of
the victim, the age of the claimant has no relevance because of the
fact that it has no nexus with the assessment of the loss of
dependency.
22. Moreover, subsequent to the introduction of Section 163A
and the Second Schedule of the Act, the Apex Court in Trilok
Chandra, introduced a structural change by increasing the
numerical value of multiplier from „16‟to„18‟, whereas it had been
fixed at „16‟as per Susamma Thomas. Specifically, there was no
variation in respect of fundamental premise of „multiplier method‟
as held in Susamma Thomas. In Trilok Chandra, the apex court
has taken the second schedule as a guiding factor.
23. Significantly, the Apex Court in the case of Reshma
Kumari and M. Nag Pal has followed the age of the victim as a
factor for selecting the multiplier. Specifically, in the selection of
multiplier for the age group up to ‟15‟ the Apex Court never
considered the age of the claimants as a relevant factor.
Therefore, this court finds no reason to adopt a different formula
for the victim who is above „15‟ years of age, whereas the relevant
factors have been adopted by the Apex Court such as (i) age of the
deceased (ii) income of the deceased and (iii) number of
dependents. The Apex Court, while formulating the relevant
factors for the assessment of loss of dependency, the age of the
claimants never considered as a factor. Finally, in the assessment
of dependency, the courts / tribunals are computing the
purchasing capacity of the deceased; not the claimants.
Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the age of the
victim is the proper factor for selecting the correct multiplier."
8. Considering the age of the deceased, i.e., 22 years on the date of the
accident and that the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of M.V.
Act, the appropriate multiplier would be 17 in this case.
9. It is ordered accordingly.
10. So far as the arguments regarding other issues are concerned, it is not
disputed that the age of the deceased was 22 years and the claim petition was
filed under Section 163-A of MV Act.
11. Consequently, after applying the Second Schedule of the MV Act,
loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,53,333.39/-.
12. Hence, an amount of Rs.1,61,853.39 is enhanced (Rs.4,53,333.39 -
Rs.2,91,480/-). The same is rounded off to Rs.1,61,860/-.
13. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount.
14. Accordingly, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the enhanced compensation with proportionate interest with the
Registrar General of this Court within a period of six weeks from today,
failing which, appellants/claimants shall be entitled for penal interest at the
rate of 12% per annum on account of delayed payment.
15. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release the enhanced
compensation in favour of the respondents/claimants in terms of the order
dated 17.11.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal on taking necessary steps
by them.
16. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
SURESH KAIT, J.
APRIL 17, 2014
Sb/jg
