Delhi High Court
Baij Nath Singh & Ors. vs Vijender Kumar @ Vijay @ Ors. on 28 April, 2015
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 28th April, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 228/2007
BAIJ NATH SINGH & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Peeush Sharma, Adv.
Versus
VIJENDER KUMAR @ VIJAY @ ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohan Babu Aggarwal, Adv. for
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `4,00,000/-
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims
Tribunal) in favour of the Appellants for the death of Janardan Kumar
Singh, who suffered fatal injuries in a motor vehicular accident which
occurred on 16.11.2001.
2. In the absence of any appeal by the driver, owner or the insurer, the
finding on negligence has attained finality.
3. During enquiry, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident was
caused on account of rash and negligent driving of truck bearing
registration no.DL-1LB-6031 driven by Respondent no.1.
4. Further, on appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that
the deceased was getting a salary of `10,000/- per month including
`1,000/- towards conveyance charges.
5. The Claims Tribunal deducted `1,000/- paid towards conveyance
charges from the salary of the deceased and deducted 1/3rd towards
personal and living expenses and applied a multiplier of 5 as per the
age of the father of the deceased to compute the loss of dependency as
`3,60,000/-.
6. Further, the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of `40,000/- towards non-
pecuniary damages to compute the overall compensation of
`4,00,000/-.
7. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellants:-
(i) The income of the deceased ought to have been accepted as
`10,000/- per month for computing the loss of dependency;
(ii) The age of the mother of the deceased as per the voter identity
card on the date of accident (16.11.2001) was 54 years and the
appropriate multiplier on this age will be 11 as against 5 taken
by the Claims Tribunal;
(iii) The deceased had bright future prospects, addition of 50%
ought to have been made for computing loss of dependency;
and
(iv) The compensation awarded towards non-pecuniary damages is
on the lower side.
8. The learned counsel for the Respondent Insurance Company, however,
submits that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable and does
not call for any interference.
9. The Appellants have placed on record the salary certificate Ex.PW-1/4
which was proved by PW-2 Babu Lal Meerwal, Proprietor of M/s.
Meerwal Construction Company. From the evidence of PW-2, it can
be gathered that conveyance allowance was being paid to the deceased
as part of his salary only for reporting for duty. Since `1,000/- was
part of the salary, I will take entire income of the deceased to compute
the loss of dependency.
10. As far as multiplier is concerned, as per the voter identity card
available on the Trial Court record, the age of the mother of the
deceased was 54 years on the date of the unfortunate accident.
Therefore, the appropriate multiplier will be 11 as against 5 adopted
by the Claims Tribunal.
11. In case of a bachelor, unless siblings are also dependent, deduction of
50% ought to have been made towards personal and living expenses.
12. The learned counsel for the Appellants submits that since the deceased
had good future prospects, addition of 50% ought to have been made
to compute the loss of dependency. I have perused the testimony of
PW-2. Deceased Janardhan Kumar Singh had joined PW-2 Babu Lal
Meerwal just 1½ months prior to his death. Of course, PW-2 spoke
high of him. The Trial Court also reveals that before his employment
with PW-2, deceased was working with Upkar Construction
(Engineers & Developers) where the deceased was getting a salary of
`8,000/- per month. Thus, it is established that the deceased was an
experienced Site Engineer. PW-2 was also satisfied with his work and
conduct and stated that if the deceased would have been alive, he
would have been paid at least `12,000/- to `13,000/- per month as of
now. Since the deceased was getting consistent hikes in his salary, in
my view, the Appellants ought to have been granted addition of 50%
towards future prospects.
13. The loss of dependency thus, comes to `8,82,750/- (10,000/- x 12 -
`13,000/- (income tax) + 50% x 1/2 x 11).
14. As far as award towards non-pecuniary damages is concerned, it is
now settled that the legal representatives are entitled to a sum of
`1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss of
consortium, `25,000/- towards funeral expenses and `10,000/-
towards loss to estate in view of the three Judge Bench decision of the
Supreme Court in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9
SCC 54.
15. In the instant case, since the deceased was a bachelor, therefore, the
Appellants would be entitled to a total sum of `1,35,000/- towards
non-pecuniary damages.
16. The overall compensation hence, comes to `10,17,750/-.
17. Thus, the compensation is enhanced by `6,17,750/- which shall carry
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim
Petition till its payment.
18. The enhanced compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum
shall be deposited by Insurance Company within a period of four
weeks in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi.
19. 50% of the enhanced compensation along with interest shall be held in
fixed deposit for a period of one year. Rest 50% along with interest
shall be released to the Appellants on deposit.
20. The appeal is allowed in above terms.
21. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
22. Dasti to the counsel for the parties.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 28, 2015
vk
