Delhi High Court
Bihari Lal Kalra & Anr vs Sodhi Lal & Others on 18 December, 2014
$~A-4 & 5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision 18.12.2014
+ MAC.APP. 928-29/2005
BIHARI LAL KALRA & ANR ..... Appellants
Through Mr. S.N. Kalra, Advocate.
versus
SODHI LAL & OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for
Insurance Company.
+ MAC.APP. 229/2006
AMAR CHAND ..... Appellant
Through Mr. S.N.Kalra, Advocate.
versus
SODHI LAL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for
Insurance Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal is filed seeking to impugn the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal as per award dated 26.09.2005.
2. The brief facts are that on 28.11.1995 the injured Amar Chand was
driving the truck. He parked his truck on the kacha road for purpose of
tightening of tripal as he was carrying sugar in the truck. When the injured
Amar Chand and the deceased Ishan Kalra were tightening the tripal, the
truck was hit by a bus said to be driven rashly and negligently. As a result of
the accident, Sh.Ishan Kalra died due to the injuries sustained whereas Amar
Chand received injuries.
3. Two separate claim petitions were filed.
MAC APP.928-29/2009
4. I will first dispose of MAC. APP. 928-29/2005 which pertains to the
dependents of late Sh. Ishan Kalra.
5. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a total
compensation of Rs.2,18,000/-. Rs.1,98,000/- was awarded for loss of
dependency, Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of love
and affection.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
compensation awarded is inadequate. He submits that as per the
matriculation certificate placed on record, the deceased was 18 years old and
highly qualified inasmuch as the matriculate certificate grades him as
excellent. He submits that the Tribunal had wrongly assessed the income of
the deceased based on minimum wages for an unskilled worker at Rs.1,545/-
per month. He submits that the deceased being a brilliant student who comes
from a business family of transporters, his income should have been
assessed at a much higher level i.e. around Rs.2,500/- per month.
7. I may look at the evidence on record. A perusal of the matriculation
certificate shows that the deceased was studying in Government Boys High
School, Ateli (Mohinder Garh). In the matriculation examination he had
received 333/600 marks. As per PW-4, Sh. Bihari Lal Kalra, the father of the
deceased, the father with his brother is doing business of transport in a joint
venture. He further states in his affidavit by way of evidence that the
deceased was self-employed and running the transport services along with
PW-4 and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month.
8. There can be no dispute that the deceased was a matriculate. The
relevant minimum wages prescribed for a matriculate would be the
applicable wages. The deceased was working in Mahinder Garh, Haryana.
He comes from a rural area and he has done well in the matriculation exams.
The family background is of a transport business. I hence assess the salary
of the deceased based on minimum wages for a matriculate as applicable to
Delhi. At the relevant time when the accident took place that was Rs. 1993
(rounded off to Rs.2,000/- per month). The said sum would also be enhanced
by 50% on account of future prospects while computing loss of dependency.
Hence, now loss of dependency would come to Rs.3,24,000/- [(Rs.2,000/- +
50%) - ½ x 12 x 18].
9. I have taken the multiplier of 18 based on the age of the deceased in
view of the judgment of this High Court in the case of Mohd. Hasnain &
Ors. vs. Jagram Meena & Ors. MANU/DE/0715/2014; 2014 (142) DRJ
303. That was a case where the age of the deceased was 39 years. 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 in the
case Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
MANU/SC/0537/2012. In the later judgment 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."
10. Total compensation now payable to the claimants would come to
Rs.3,44,000/-. (Rs.3,24,000 + 15000 + 5000)
11. The respondent Insurance Company would deposit the enhanced
compensation amount along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the
filing of the claim petition till deposit before the Registrar General of this
court within four weeks from today. On receipt of the said amount, the
Registrar General shall release the same to the claimants proportionately as
per the directions in the Award.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that appellant
No.1, the father of the deceased has expired and the entire compensation
would now be payable to appellant No.2, Smt. Ram Devi, the mother of the
deceased. It is ordered accordingly.
13. The appeal stands disposed of.
MAC.APP.No.229/2006
14. I will now deal with MAC. APP. 229/2006.
15. This appeal is filed by the injured Amar Chand seeking enhancement
of compensation. Amar Chand was the driver of the truck.
16. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the claimant
Sh.Amar Chand suffered fracture of the right fore arm and right elbow
region because of which he is unable to carry out his profession of driver
and even the profession of an unskilled labourer. Hence, he submits that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is totally inadequate.
17. A perusal of the award shows that the Tribunal has awarded
compensation as follows:-
Medicine Rs.3,000/-
Conveyance Rs.2,000/-
Special Diet Rs.2,000/-
Loss of salary of five months Rs.10,000/-
Pain and suffering Rs.5,000/-
Total Rs.22,000/-
18. A perusal of the award also shows that the Tribunal noted that the
clamant suffered fracture of right fore arm and right elbow region. No
receipts or proof of any medical expense incurred were placed on record. It
was also noted that keeping in view that the right fore arm was put under
POP cast, in all probability the claimant would not have been able to work
for a period of 4 to 5 months. Based on minimum wages in the year 1999 for
a skilled labourer at Rs.1969/- per month which was rounded off to
Rs.2,000/- per month, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- for loss of salary
for five months.
19. A perusal of the evidence of Sh.Amar Chand shows that there is
nothing said in the affidavit by way of evidence to show any permanent
disability suffered by the claimant or any other averment in the affidavit
stating as to how much loss of capacity to earn has been suffered by him.
20. In the light of the evidence placed on record by the appellants, in my
opinion, there is no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the
Tribunal.
21. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
JAYANT NATH, J
DECEMBER 18, 2014
rb
