Delhi High Court
Sh. Sewa Ram & Ors. vs Sh. Ashraf & Ors. on 30 October, 2014
$~A-14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 30.10.2014
+ MAC.APP. 500/2012
SH. SEWA RAM & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through Mr. O.P.Mannie, Adv.
versus
SH. ASHRAF & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Manjusha Wadhwa & Ms. Harsh
Lata, Advs. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the
compensation awarded vide Award dated 20.12.2011. The claim petition was
filed by appellants no. 1 & 2 under Section 166 and 140 of the M.V. Act, 1988.
2. The brief facts are that on 29.08.2009, the deceased, Sh.Anil Kumar was
going on his motorcycle with his brother Sh. Amit Kumar. When they stopped
their motorcycle, a truck being driven rashly and negligently in a high speed
came from behind from the wrong side and hit the motorcycle and also the
deceased who was standing near the motorcycle. The deceased Sh.Anil Kumar
was removed to Astha Nursing Home, Baraut and thereafter shifted to
Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi where he succumbed to his
injuries on 30.08.2009.
3. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident took
place due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent no. 1.
4. On compensation, the Tribunal awarded the following amount:
Loss of dependency Rs.9,85,236/-
Loss of Love and affection Rs.10,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.5,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.10,10,236/-
5. The Tribunal after going through the material on record assessed the
salary of the deceased at Rs.11,729/-. The Tribunal deducted 50% towards
personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor aged 21 years. After applying
the multiplier of 14, taking into consideration the age of the mother of the
deceased the Tribunal calculated the loss of dependency as Rs. 9,85,236/-.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the Tribunal
has erred in not taking into account the future increase in the income of the
deceased as he was only 21 years of age and had just started his career. He
further submits that the wrong multiplier has been used by the Tribunal based
on the age of the mother of the deceased and not the age of the deceased
himself. Lastly, he submits that the amount granted under the heads of loss of
love and affection and funeral expenses are on the lower side.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Respondent no.
3/insurance company states that the amount of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal should not be increased as the claimants have already received a sum
of Rs. 15 lacs towards group insurance policy done by the company for its
employees in case of accidental death and that the amount of compensation
should be decreased as they should have filed a cross-appeal.
8. On the contention of the respondentNo.3/insurance company regarding a
sum of Rs. 15 lacs towards group insurance policy received by the claimants,
no details of the policy have been pointed out to this Court. Reference may be
had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar and
Others vs. Kishore Dan and Others, (2013) 7 SCC 476 which relies on the
judgment of Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) & Ors. vs. Maharashtra state Road
Transport Corporation & Anr. (1999) 1 SCC 90 which judgment in para 35
held as follows:
"Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the
benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service
in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his
death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the
accidental death. No correlation between the two. Similarly, life
insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of
the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which
the insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable
even by the insured if he lives till maturity after paying all the
premiums. In the case of death, the insurer indemnifies to pay the
sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract for the premium
paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on
account of any accidental death but otherwise on the insured's
death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the
contract, to receive the amount."
9. In view of the above, in my opinion, the amount given under the
Insurance policy, if any does not affect the benefits under the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 in the facts of this case. I find no merit in the contention of
respondent no. 3.
10. Coming to the contention of the appellant of future prospects. I can take
judicial note of the fact that minimum wages for an unskilled worker in 2002
were Rs.2679.70/- P.M. and in 2012 were Rs.7020/- P.M. It is obvious that the
prescribed minimum wages have more than doubled in ten years.
11. In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh &
Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54 and V.Mekala vs. M.Malathi &
Anr., 2014 ACJ 1441 as the age of the deceased was 21 years, 50% is added to
the income towards future increase on account of inflation.
12. As far as multiplier is concerned, this Court in the case of Mohd.
Hasnain & Ors. vs. Jagram Meena & Ors. MANU/DE/0715/2014; 2014 (142)
DRJ 303 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.
13. 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 which
judgment further relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
MANU/SC/0537/2012 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."
14. 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.
15. Hence, the appropriate multiplier to be used would be 18 given the
deceased was 21 years of age on the date of the accident.
16. Thus, loss of dependency amounts to Rs.19,00,098/- [(11,729 + 50% -
1/2 ) x 12 x 18].
17. On the issue of non-pecuniary heads, In view of the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh &
Ors.(supra), I enhance the amount of for loss of love and affection to Rs.
1,00,000/- and the amount under the head of funeral expenses is increased to
Rs.25,000/-.
18. The total compensation now reads as under:
Loss of Dependency Rs. 19,00,098/-
Loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.20,35,098/-
19. The present appeal stands disposed of.
20. The respondent No.3/insurance company shall deposit the additional
amount within six weeks from today alongwith interest @7.5% from the date
of filing the claim petition till deposit before the Registrar General of this
Court. On deposit of the said amount, the same shall be released in favour of
the claimants proportionately as per the directions in the Award.
21. The statutory amount, if any, paid by the respondent no. 3/insurance
company shall be refunded.
JAYANT NATH, J
OCTOBER 30, 2014/sh
