Delhi High Court
Sarojni Devi Sati & Anr. vs Hem Lal Panthi & Anr. on 18 February, 2015
Author: G.P. Mittal
$-29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 18th February, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 1142/2013
SAROJNI DEVI SATI & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Nemo.
versus
HEM LAL PANTHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navneet Kumar, Adv. for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `3,04,500/-
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims
Tribunal) in favour of the Appellants (the Claimant) for the
death of Rohit Prasad Sati, who died in a motor vehicular
accident which occurred on 22.01.2012 involving a motorcycle
bearing registration no.DL-3S-BS-4263 which was being driven
by one Jeevan at the time of the accident. Said Jeevan also
expired in the accident. The number of other vehicle involved in
the accident could not be known. The evidence produced by the
Appellants that Jeevan was driving the vehicle at the time of the
accident could not be assailed by the Respondents and hence,
the compensation as stated above was awarded.
2. The short submission raised on behalf of the Appellants is that
in a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (the M.V.Act), the compensation should have been
awarded strictly in accordance with the structural formula.
3. I do agree with the Appellants.
4. It is well settled that compensation in a petition under Section
163-A of the M.V. Act should be given strictly in accordance
with the Second Schedule attached to the M.V. Act. The
deduction will be 1/3rd and the multiplier will be as per the age
of the deceased as given in the Schedule. This question was
dealt with in great detail by this Court in New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. v. Pitamber & Ors., MAC.APP. 304/2009 decided on
23.01.2012. This Court referred to the decisions in Oriental
Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Pataso & Ors., MAC
APP.962/2005 decided on 01.09.2008; Oriental Insurance
Company Limited v. Om Prakash & Ors., 1 (2009) ACC 148;
Jagdish & Anr. v. Madhav Raj Mishra and Anr. MAC
APP.190/2011 decided on 19.04.2011; Oriental Insurance
Company Limited v. Anita Devi & Ors., 2011 (5) AD (Delhi)
138, decided on 10.05.2011; Oriental Insurance Company v.
Hansrajbhai v. Kodala, (2001) 5 SCC 175 and Deepal
Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Company Limited,
(2004) 5 SCC 385 and held that in a petition under Section 163-
A of the Motor Vehicle Act, there is a cap of `40,000/- on the
annual income and the compensation including non-pecuniary
damages have to be awarded as per the Second Schedule.
5. The income of the deceased was claimed to be `40,000/- per
annum as an employee with Tarun Sood, who was doing
business in the name and style of Sood Properties. However,
there is no proof of the same. On the other hand, the minimum
wages of an unskilled worker at that time was `6,656/- per
month which would make annual income as `79,872/-. In view
of this, the claim of income of `40,000/- per annum cannot be
said to be excessive as the same was less than the annual
minimum wages. The loss of dependency therefore, comes to
`4,26,666/- (40,000/- x 2/3 x 16) rounded off @ `4,26,700/-
6. In addition, the Appellants are entitled to a sum of `2,000/-
towards funeral expenses and `2,500/- towards loss to estate.
The overall compensation thus comes to `4,31,200/-.
7. The compensation is hence, enhanced by `1,26,700/- which
shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of
the Claim Petition till its payment.
8. Respondent no.2 Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation along with proportionate interest within
four weeks, failing which the Appellants would be entitled to
interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this judgment.
9. 70% of the enhanced compensation shall be paid to Appellant
no.1 and rest 30% shall be paid to Appellant no.2.
10. 50% of the enhanced compensation along with proportionate
interest shall be held in fixed deposit for a period of one year.
Rest to be released on deposit.
11. The appeal is allowed in above terms.
12. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
13. Dasti.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 18, 2015
vk
