Delhi High Court
Sushila Gupta And Ors vs Surinder Kumar Goel And Ors on 24 February, 2015
Author: G.P. Mittal
$-14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 24th February, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 212/2013
SUSHILA GUPTA AND ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.Amit Bajaj, Advocate &
Mr. Puneet Bajaj, Advocate
versus
SURINDER KUMAR GOEL AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. R.B. Shami, Advocate for
Respondent no.3 Insurance
Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation of
Rs.11,57,785/- (rounded off Rs.11,60,000/-) awarded by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in
favour of the Appellants for the death of Satya Parkash who
died in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on
30.10.2006 at about 11:20 p.m.
2. The only ground raised at the time of hearing of the appeal by
the learned counsel for the Appellants is that the deceased was
aged 51 years at the time of his accident and the multiplier
ought to have been 11 instead of 9 as adopted by the Claims
Tribunal. It is contended that although the family members of
the deceased spent Rs.76,214/- towards payment to Shri Balaji
Action Medical Institute for the treatment given to the deceased
before he succumbed to the injuries, yet only a sum of
Rs.50,000/- was awarded towards cost of treatment.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent no.3
Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and states
that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable.
4. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the
deceased was hit due to rash and negligent driving of the
Wagon R bearing no.DL-8CK-7163. At the same time, it was
held that the deceased contributed to the accident and therefore,
deduction to the extent of 10% was made from the
compensation granted towards the same.
5. I have the Trial Court record before me. The learned counsel
for the parties have referred to various documents wherein the
age of the deceased on the date of the accident comes to
between 50-56 years. Since the multiplier changes post age of
55 years, this Court has to determine the exact age of the
deceased.
6. The learned counsel for Respondent Insurance Company has
referred to Income Tax Return (ITR) for the Assessment Year
(A.Y.) 2005-06 wherein the date of birth of the deceased has
been mentioned as 25.10.1950. In some of the documents
prepared by Shri Balaji Action Medical Institute, the age has
been mentioned as 50 years and in others, 56 years. There is
another ITR for the A.Y. 2004-05 which mentions the date of
birth as 25.10.1955. There is PAN Card issued by the Income
Tax Department and an Identity Card issued by
SHRILALMAHAL GROUP where the date of birth has been
mentioned as 25.10.1955. Age in discharge summary and other
medical record prepared by Shri Balaji Action Medical Institute
must have been mentioned as per the statement made by some
or the other relations or friends of the deceased. In the two
ITRs as stated above, there is contradiction which stands
clarified from the PAN Card issued by the Income Tax
Department. Therefore, I tend to accept the date of birth as
25.10.1955 and will ignore the ITR for the A.Y. 2005-06. The
appropriate multiplier therefore, will be 11 as against 9 adopted
by the Claims Tribunal. The loss of dependency thus, comes to
Rs.14,98,200/- (Rs.16,400/- - Rs.1,100/- (Conveyance) x 12 -
Rs.2,000/-(Income Tax) x 3/4 x 11).
7. The original bill dated 04.11.2006 reveals that an advance of
Rs.15,240/- was paid initially and further a sum of Rs.60,974/-
was paid at the time of discharge to the hospital. Thus, a total
sum of Rs.76,214/- was paid towards the treatment of the
deceased before he succumbed to the injuries.
8. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a lumpsum compensation of
Rs.50,000/- towards medical treatment, transportation and
attendant charges. Thus, in addition to the sum of Rs.76,214/-
towards treatment, the Appellants would be further entitled to a
sum of Rs.25,000/- towards conveyance, special diet and
attendant charges.
9. In view of the judgment in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh &
Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, I further award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
each towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium,
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards
loss to estate. Compensation for pain and suffering is not
permissible in cases of death.
10. The overall compensation is hence, recomputed as under:
Sl. Compensation under various Awarded by Awarded by
Heads the Claims this Court
No. Tribunal (in (in Rs.)
Rs.)
1. Medical, Transportation and 50,000/- 1,01,214/-
Attendant Charges
(being loss to estate after death)
2. Loss of Income 10,62,785/- 14,98,200/-
3. Loss of Love and Affection 25,000/- 1,00,000/-
4. Funeral Expenses 10,000/- 25,000/-
5. Pain & Suffering 10,000/- Nil.
6. Loss of Consortium - 1,00,000/-
7. Loss to Estate - 10,000/-
TOTAL 11,57,785/ 18,34,414/-
(rounded off (rounded off
11,60,000/-) to
18,35,000/-)
11. The compensation computed is deducted by 10% as
contributory negligence of the deceased was not challenged at
the time of hearing. The net enhanced compensation of
Rs.6,07,500/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition till its payment.
12. Respondent no.3 New India Assurance Company Ltd. is
directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with the Claims
Tribunal within six weeks, failing with the Appellants shall be
entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this
judgment.
13. The entire enhanced compensation shall enure for the benefit of
Appellant no.1, who is widow of the deceased.
14. 75% of the enhanced compensation shall be held in Fixed
Deposit for two, four and six years respectively in equal
proportion; rest shall be released on deposit.
15. The appeal is allowed in above terms.
16. Pending applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 24, 2015
pst
