Delhi High Court
Punnoose K. Elias & Anr. vs Sh. Ram Parshad & Ors. on 9 December, 2014
$~A-16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 9.12.2014
+ MAC.APP. 724/2012
PUNNOOSE K. ELIAS & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through Ms.O.P. Mannie, Adv.
Versus
SH. RAM PARSHAD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Anand Vardhan,Adv for Respondent
no.3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)
1. By the present appeal the claimants seek enhancement of the awarded
amount by the Award dated 09.09.2011.
2. The brief facts which led to filing of the claim petition are that on
10.05.2009 at about 11:00 pm Sh.Pintu Punnoose was plying a motorcycle
from the side of Mehrauli towards Mahipalpur on Ring Road. When he reached
in front of IDBI Bank, Mahipalpur suddenly a dumper tractor being driven by
Respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit the
motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of the impact, he fell on the road and
sustained grievous injuries. He was removed to Safdurjung Hospital where he
succumbed to his injuries.
3. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded that the
accident took place due the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle.
4. On compensation, the Tribunal awarded the following compensation:-
Loss of dependency Rs.14,26,125/-
Loss of love & affection Rs.20,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.14,61,125/-
5. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased based on the salary
slip placed on record Ex.PW-1/6 as Rs.19,913/-. Further, Rs.1,250/- was
deducted towards medical expenses and Rs.1,250/- towards uniform. Hence,
the salary for the purpose of calculating loss of dependency was taken as
Rs.17,413/- per month. As the age of the deceased was 22 years, 50% was
added towards future prospects. Further, 1/2 was deducted towards personal &
living expenses as the deceased was a bachelor. Applying the multiplier of 13
based on the average age of the parents, loss of dependency was calculated at
Rs. 14,26,125/-.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks to impugn the
compensation awarded stating that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the
multiplier based on the age of the dependants of the deceased for the
calculation of loss of dependency and that it should be based on the age of the
deceased. He also contends that the compensation awarded for non-pecuniary
heads is on the lower side.
7. On the issue of multiplier being used for the calculation of loss of
dependency, reference may be had to the judgment of this Court in the case of
Mohd. Hasnain & Ors. vs. Jagram Meena & Ors. MANU/DE/0715/2014;
2014 (142) DRJ 303. This Court held that the multiplier has to be based on the
age of the deceased. That was a case where the age of the deceased was 39
years.
8. This Court in the said case of Mohd. Hasnain & Ors. vs. Jagram Meena
& Ors. (supra) relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in case of M.
Mansoor vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., MANU/SC/1042 and the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. MANU/SC/0537/2012 where the
Supreme Court held as follows:-
"15. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased
and not on the basis of the age of the dependants. There may be a
number of dependants of the deceased whose age may be different
and, therefore, the age of the dependants has no nexus with the
computation of compensation."
9. M. Mansoor vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd (supra) was a case
where the deceased was a bachelor of 24 years of age and the Supreme Court
held that the selection of the multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and
not the age of the dependants. Further, in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali &
Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (supra) the deceased was a
bachelor aged 26 years and the Court applied the multiplier of 17. In view of
the said judgment passed by this Court, following the judgments of the
Supreme Court, the Tribunal erred in not taking the age of the deceased to
consider the appropriate multiplier.
10. I may further note that in MAC APP.761/2012 Rakesh and Ors. vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. vide judgment dated 02.04.2014 where
the deceased was 24 years the Tribunal had taken the multiplier of 13
considering the age of the mother of the deceased, as he was a bachelor. This
court relying upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Mohd. Hasnain &
Ors. vs. Jagram Meena & Ors. (supra) applied a multiplier of 18 based on the
age of the deceased. Against the said judgment the appellant had filed an SLP
before the Supreme Court. The said SLP No.5612/2014 was dismissed by the
Supreme Court on 10.10.2014.
11. In view of the above, the appropriate multiplier to be applied for the
calculation of loss of dependency would be 18 as the deceased at the time of
the accident was 22 years old. Hence, the loss of dependency now comes to
Rs.28,20,906/- [(17,413 + 50% - ½) x 12 x 18].
12. On the issue of non-pecuniary damages, in view of the judgments of the
Supreme Court in the cases of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors.(2013) 9
SCC 54, Kala Devi vs. Bhagwan Das Chauhan 2014 (12) SCALE 513 and
Anjani Singh & Ors. vs. Salauddin & Ors. JT 2014 (7) SC 183, I enhance the
compensation awarded under the head of loss of love and affection from
Rs.20,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. I also enhance the amount for funeral expenses
from Rs.15,000 to Rs. 25,000/-.
13. The total compensation now reads as follows:
Loss of dependency Rs.28,20,906/-
Loss of love & affection Rs.1,00,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.29,45,906/-
14. The appellant insurance company is hereby directed to deposit the
awarded amount within four weeks from today with Registrar General of this
Court. On deposit of the awarded amount, the Registrar General may release
the amount in favour of the beneficiaries/claimants proportionately as per the
directions in the Award through UCO Bank, Delhi High Court.
15. The present appeal is accordingly disposed of.
JAYANT NATH, J
DECEMBER 09, 2014
sh
