Delhi High Court
Nirvighan Dhir & Ors vs Mohit Verma @ Monu & Anr on 4 December, 2014
$~A-4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 04.12.2014
+ MAC.APP. 664/2007
NIRVIGHAN DHIR & ORS ..... Appellant
Through Thakur Sumit. Advocate
versus
MOHIT VERMA @ MONU & ANR ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Tarkeshwar Nath and Mr.Saurabh
Kumar Tuteja, Advocates for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (Oral)
1. By the present appeal the appellant seeks to impugn the Award dated
17.5.2007 and seeks enhancement of compensation. The background facts
that led to filing of the claim petition are that on 21.06.2000 the deceased
Ravi Kant Dhir was returning to his house from Faridabad on his scooter.
When he reached G-Block, Main Road, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi he was hit
by a motorcycle driven rashly and negligently. He sustained grievous
injuries. He remained admitted in Apollo hospital and thereafter was shifted
to Holy family hospital. On 29.7.2000 succumbed to his injuries.
2. The controversy revolves around the amount of compensation
assessed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal assessed the total compensation as
Rs.2,15,000/- break up of which reads as follows:-
Loss of dependency Rs.1,00,000/-
Medical expenses Rs, 95,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/-
Loss of consortium, love and affection Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.2,15,000/-
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that despite
evidence on record to show that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per
month the Tribunal has rejected the evidence contrary to all canons of law
and assessed the income of the deceased based on minimum wages for an
unskilled worker which at the relevant time was Rs.2,500/-. It is submitted
that the assessment of income is entirely erroneous. Reliance is placed on
the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 to show that the income of the deceased was
Rs.10,000/- per month. It is next urged that the deceased had just crossed 60
years on the date of the accident and as per the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Smt.Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 the multiplier to be used was 7 and not 5 as used
by the Tribunal. It is next urged that non pecuniary damages have been
awarded on the lower side. Reliance is placed on judgment of the Supreme
Court in Anjani Singh & Ors. vs. Salauddin & Ors., JT 2014 (7) SC 183
which is case of an accident which took place on 17.9.1997 and the Supreme
Court awarded Rs.1 lac to the widow for loss of consortium. It is lastly
urged that the Tribunal has awarded interest @6% per annum from the date
of filing of the claim petition till realisation whereas it is urged that most
judgments of Supreme Court say it should be 9% per annum.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/Insurance
Company submits that the computation of income based on minimum wages
is in order keeping into account the records and the nature of evidence
placed on record by the claimants.
5. Coming to the issue of assessment of income, a perusal of the award
shows that the Tribunal noted the evidence of PW-1 the wife of the
deceased, PW-2 former employer of the deceased where the deceased had
worked from 1985 till January 1996, PW-3 and PW-4 for whom the
deceased was stated to be doing commercial work. The Tribunal, however,
concluded that the appellants had failed to prove that the deceased was
earning Rs.10,000/- per month, The Tribunal assessed the income as
Rs.2,500/- per month based on minimum wages at the relevant time.
6. I may look at the evidence of the claimant. PW-1 Smt.Nirvighan Dhir
the widow of the deceased in her affidavit by way of evidence in paragraphs
8 to 10 has said as follows:-
"8. I say that the deceased was highly qualified and had a meticulous
academic record. The deceased matriculated in First Division in the
year 1940 from Punjab University and thereafter he graduated from
Punjab University and post-graduated from Lucknow University and
also served as Secretary of the Lucknow University, History
Association during the year 1960-61 and he was awarded a merit
certificate to this effect. I have brought with me the originals of the
said certificates and the copies thereof are Ex.PW1/34 to 1/37.
9. I say that the deceased had worked with M/s.Vinko Auto Industries
Limited as Assistant Sales Manager. He joined the said company in
the year 1985 and worked there till January, 1996. At the time of
leaving the said job, he was drawing a salary of Rs.5500/- p.m. The
salary certificate of M/s. Vinko Auto Industries Ltd. is Ex.PW1/38.
The deceased also gave helping hand to his sons i.e. petitioners No.2
and 3 in their business and was actively looking after their said
business.
10. I say that subsequently, the deceased also started his private job on
commission basis and had worked with (i)M/s. Katyani Clutch
Systems, NOIDA and (ii) M/s.Kamboj Electro Tech Pvt.Ltd. Noida.
The commission vouchers/certificates of the aforesaid companies are
Ex.PW1/39 to 1/44. The deceased got the following commission
from the said companies for the period from April onwards till June,
2000.
M/s.Katyani Clutch Systems:
April Rs.8477/-
May Rs.2515/-
June Rs.3000/-
M/s.Kamboj Electro Tech Pvt. Ltd.:
April Rs.4230/-
May Rs.8500/-
June Rs.7500/-"
7. There is no cross-examination of the said witness on the said issue.
8. PW-2 Shri Jinesh Jain from Vinco Auto Industries Limited has
confirmed that the deceased joined the company in 1985 as Assistant Sales
Manager and resigned in 1996 and he was getting a gross salary of
Rs.5,500/- per month. PW-3 Shri.Tilak Raj partner of M/s Katyani Clutch
Systems and PW-4 Shri Mohd.Zaki Khan from. Kamboj Electro-Tech
Private Limited have deposed that the deceased was doing commission work
for their company and has exhibited the various commission certificates
placed on record.
9. Keeping in view the work experience of the deceased and the fact that
he is a graduate from Punjab University and Post Graduate from Lucknow
University, in my opinion assessing his income based on the minimum
wages for an unskilled labour was incorrect. It is true that the claimants
have failed to place on record proper proof of payment in the form of bank
statements and TDS certificates. However, the deceased is stated to be not
an income tax assessee.
10. I assess the income of the deceased for the purpose of computing loss
of dependency at Rs.5,000/- per month. Reference may be had to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kala Devi vs. Bhagwan Dass
Chauhan, 2014 (12) Scale 513.
11. As far as issue of multiplier is concerned, in view of Sarla Verma vs.
DTC (supra) the multiplier of 7 would be the proper multiplier. Hence, loss
of dependency would be Rs. 2,80,000/-(5,000 -1/3 x 12 x 7).
12. Coming to loss of consortium, keeping in view the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Anjani Singh & Ors. vs. Salauddin & Ors.(supra) I
enhance the compensation awarded for loss of consortium from Rs.15,000/-
to Rs.1,00,000/-.
13. As far as interest from the date of filing the claim petition is
concerned the interest is normally at the discretion of the Tribunal in terms
of section 171 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988. I see no reason to interfere
with the Award of interest @6% per annum.
14. The total compensation would now read as under:-
Loss of dependency Rs. 2,80,000/-
Medical expenses Rs. 95,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/-
Loss of consortium, love Rs. 1,00,000/-
and affection
Total Rs. 4,80,000/-
15. In view of the above, in my opinion, the compensation now awarded
is just, fair and reasonable.
16. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company shall deposit the additional
compensation amount alongwith accumulated interest @7.5% per annum
from the date of filing the claim petition till deposit in Court with the
Registrar General of this court within six weeks. The enhanced
compensation amount be released to appellant No.1/Smt Nirvighan Dhir.
17. Appeal stands disposed of.
DECEMBER 04, 2014/n JAYANT NATH, J.
