Delhi High Court
Rekha & Anr. vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. on 8 July, 2015
$~
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 308/2011
% Date of Decision : 8th July, 2015
REKHA & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through : Ms. Aruna Mehta, Advocate.
versus
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Anjali Sharma, Advocate.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT
1. The appellants have challenged judgement and decree for
Rs.4,16,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% passed by the learned Trial Court.
The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation amount to Rs.
10 Lakh.
2. On 15th June, 2007 at about 02.30 P.M., Raju was crossing Lottery
Godown Street. The said area was water logged due to the rains. In order to
save himself from the collected water, Raju held the electric pole No. B-286
and he was electrocuted due to the leakage of electricity in the said pole.
3. The deceased Raju was survived by his widow and parents who filed
a suit for recovery before the Trial Court. The deceased was aged 35 years at
the time of the accident and was carrying on the business of manufacture of
card board boxes. The appellants claimed that the deceased was earning
Rs.6,000/- per month. The learned Trial Court took the minimum wages of
Rs.3,500/- per month deducted 50% towards personal expenses and applied
the multiplier of 16 to compute the loss of dependency of Rs.3,36,000/-. The
learned Trial Court awarded Rs.75,000/- towards loss of consortium, loss of
love and affection, loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.
The total compensation awarded is Rs.4,16,000/- along with interest @7.5%
from the date of decree.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged following grounds at the
time of hearing of the appeal:-
(i) The income of the deceased be taken as Rs.6,000/- per month.
(ii) The future prospects be added to the income of the deceased.
(iii) The interest be awarded @ 9% from the date of the filing of the suit.
5. The appellants are entitled to just compensation under Sections 1A
and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1885 which has to be computed according
to the multiplier method. Reference may be made to Gobald Motor Service
Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswam & Ors, 1962 (1) SCR 929, Dr. Laxman
Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole, AIR 1969 SC 128, Ishwar
Devi Malik. v. Union of India, AIR 1969 Delhi 183, Lachman Singh v.
Gurmit Kaur, AIR 1979 P&H 50, Bir Singh v. Hashi Rashi Banerjee, AIR
1956 Cal. 555. The multiplier method has been accepted as legally sound
method for determining compensation in death cases by the Supreme Court
in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197; Municipal
Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, AIR
2012 SC 100 and Delhi High Court in Jaipur Golden Gas Victims
Association v. Union of India, 164 (2009) DLT 346; Nagrik Sangarsh
Samiti v. Union of India, ILR (2010) 4 Delhi 293; Ram Kishore v. MCD,
2007 (97) DRJ 445; Ashok Sharma v. Union of India, 2009 ACJ 1063.
6. In Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (supra), a fire broke out in a
factory in which sixty people died and one hundred and thirteen got injured.
The Supreme Court awarded compensation to the victims on the basis of the
multiplier method.
7. In Jaipur Golden Gas Victims Association v. Union of India (supra),
the Division Bench of this Court awarded compensation to the victims of
Jaipur Golden Fire Tragedy by applying the multiplier method.
8. In Ashok Sharma v. Union of India (supra), six children lost their
lives by drowning during an annual training camp of NCC on account of
negligence on the part of respondents. The compensation was awarded by
applying the multiplier method.
9. The compensation in death cases according to the multiplier method is
based on the pecuniary loss caused to the dependants by the death of the
victim of the road accident. The dependency of the dependants is
determined by taking the annual earning of the deceased at the time of the
accident. Thereafter, effect is given to the future prospects of the deceased.
After the income of the deceased is established, the deduction is made
towards the personal expenses of the deceased which he would have spent
on himself. If the deceased was unmarried, normally 50% of the income is
deducted towards his personal expenses. If the deceased was married and
leaves behind two to three dependents, 1/3rd deduction is made; if the
deceased has left behind four to six family members, deduction of 1/4 th of
his income is made and where the number of dependent family members
exceeds six, the deduction of 1/5th of the income is made. The remaining
amount of income after deduction of personal expenses is taken to be the
loss of dependency to the family members which is multiplied by 12 to
determine the annual loss of dependency. The annual loss of dependency of
the dependants of the deceased is multiplied by the multiplier according to
the age of the deceased or claimant whichever is higher. A table of
multiplier is given in Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 but there
was some error in the said table which has been corrected by the Supreme
Court in the judgment of Sarla Verma v. DTC, 2009 ACJ 1298.
10. The principles relating to the computation of compensation by
multiplier method are as under:-
10.1 Multiplier
Age of the deceased Multiplier approved
(in years) by the Supreme Court
Upto 15
Above 65
[[[
10.2 Deduction for Personal and Living Expenses
10.2.1 Deceased - unmarried
(i) Deduction towards personal : 1/2 (50%)
expenses.
(ii) Deduction where the family of the : 1/3rd (33.33%)
bachelor is large and dependent on
the income of the deceased.
10.2.2 Deceased - married
(i) 2 to 3 dependent : 1/3rd deduction towards
family members. personal expenses.
(ii) 4 to 6 dependent : 1/4th deduction towards
family members. personal expenses.
(iii) More than 6 family : 1/5th deduction towards
members personal expenses.
(iv) Subject to the : Father, brother and sisters
evidence to the will not be considered as
contrary. dependents.
10.3 Future Prospects
(i) Below 40 years of age : 50% towards future
prospects.
(ii). Between 40 - 50 years 30% towards future
prospects.
(iii). More than 50 years : No addition for future
prospects.
11. In Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy & Ors. v. UOI, 104
(2003) DLT 234 (DB), the Division Bench of this Court applied the
multiplier method and the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
to compute the compensation payable to the victims of the Uphaar Tragedy.
The Division Bench held that the victims of the fire incident belonged to
reasonably well-placed families and presumed that the average income of
the victims above age of 20 years to be not less than Rs.15,000/- per month,
1/3rd was deducted towards the personal expenses and the multiplier of 15
was applied to compute the compensation as Rs.18,00,000/-. With respect
to the children, the Division Bench awarded compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/-. The Division Bench also awarded interest @ 9% per
annum. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi challenged the aforesaid
judgment of the Division Bench before the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of
Uphaar Tragedy (supra) reduced the compensation from Rs.18,00,000/- to
Rs.10,00,000/- in respect of victims aged more than 20 years and from
Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs.7,50,000/- lakhs in respect of the victims aged less than
20 years. The findings of the Supreme Court are reproduced hereunder :-
"38. ... It can be by way of making monetary amounts
for the wrong done or by way of exemplary damages,
exclusive of any amount recoverable in a civil action based
on tortuous liability. But in such a case it is improper to
assume admittedly without any basis, that every person who
visits a cinema theatre and purchases a balcony ticket should
be of a high income group person. In the year 1997, Rs.
15,000 per month was rather a high income. The movie was a
new movie with patriotic undertones. It is known that zealous
movie goers, even from low income groups, would not mind
purchasing a balcony ticket to enjoy the film on the first day
itself. To make a sweeping assumption that every person who
purchased a balcony class ticket in 1997 should have had a
monthly income of Rs. 15,000 and on that basis apply high
multiplier of 15 to determine the compensation at a uniform
rate of Rs. 18 lakhs in the case of persons above the age of 20
years and Rs. 15 lakhs for persons below that age, as a public
law remedy, may not be proper. While awarding
compensation to a large group of persons, by way of public
law remedy, it will be unsafe to use a high income as the
determinative factor. The reliance upon Neelabati Behera
(AIR 1993 SC 1960 : 1993 AIR SCW 2366) in this behalf is of
no assistance as that case related to a single individual and
there was specific evidence available in regard to the income.
Therefore, the proper course would be to award a uniform
amount keeping in view the principles relating to award of
compensation in public law remedy cases reserving liberty to
the legal heirs of deceased victims to claim additional amount
wherever they were not satisfied with the amount awarded.
Taking note of the facts and circumstances, the amount of
compensation awarded in public law remedy cases, and the
need to provide a deterrent, we are of the view that award of
Rs. 10 lakhs in the case of persons aged above 20 years and
Rs. 7.5 lakhs in regard to those who were 20 years or below
as on the date of the incident, would be appropriate. We do
not propose to disturb the award of Rs. 1 lakh each in the case
of injured. The amount awarded as compensation will carry
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of writ
petition as ordered by the High Court, reserve liberty to the
victims or the LRs. of the victims as the case may be to seek
higher remedy wherever they are not satisfied with the
compensation. Any increase shall be borne by the Licensee
(theatre owner) exclusively.
39. Normally we would have let the matter rest there. But
having regard to the special facts and circumstances of the
case we propose to proceed a step further to do complete
justice. The calamity resulted in the death of 59 persons and
injury to 103 persons. The matter related to a ghastly fire
incident of 1997. The victims association has been fighting
the cause of victims for more than 14 years. If at this stage,
we require the victims to individually approach the civil court
and claim compensation, it will cause hardship, apart from
involving huge delay, as the matter will be fought in a
hierarchy of courts. The incident is not disputed. The names
and identity of the 59 persons who died and 103 persons who
were injured are available and is not disputed. Insofar as
death cases are concerned the principle of determining
compensation is streamlined by several decisions of this
Court. (See for example Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121:(AIR 2009 SC 3104:2009 AIR
SCW 4992). If three factors are available the compensation
can be determined. The first is the age of the deceased, the
second is the income of the deceased and the third is number
of dependants (to determine the percentage of deduction for
personal expenses). For convenience the third factor can also
be excluded by adopting a standard deduction of one-third
towards personal expenses. Therefore, just two factors are
required to be ascertained to determine the compensation in
59 individual cases. First is the annual income of the
deceased, two-third of which becomes the annual loss of
dependency the age of the deceased which will furnish the
multiplier in terms of Sarla Verma (supra). The annual loss of
dependency multiplied by the multiplier will give the
compensation."
"Conclusions
46. In view of the foregoing, we dispose of the appeals as
follows:
xxx
(v) CA No. 6748 of 2004 is allowed in part and the judgment
of the High Court is modified as under:
(a) The compensation awarded by the High Court in the case
of death is reduced from Rs. 18 lacs to Rs. 10 lacs (in the case
of those aged more than 20 years) and Rs. 15 lacs to Rs. 7.5
lacs (in the case of those aged 20 years and less). The said
sum is payable to legal representatives of the deceased to be
determined by a brief and summary enquiry by the Registrar
General (or nominee of learned Chief Justice/Acting Chief
Justice of the Delhi High Court).
(b) The compensation of Rs. One lakh awarded by the High
Court in the case of each of the 103 injured persons is
affirmed.
(c) The interest awarded from the date of the writ petition on
the aforesaid sums at the rate of 9% per annum is affirmed.
(d) If the legal representatives of any deceased victim are not
satisfied with the compensation awarded, they are permitted
to file an application for compensation with supporting
documentary proof (to show the age and the income), before
the Registrar General, Delhi High Court. If such an
application if filed within three months, it shall not be
rejected on the ground of delay. The Registrar General or
such other Member of Higher Judiciary nominated by the
learned Chief Justice/Acting Chief Justice of the High Court
shall decide those applications in accordance with paras
above and place the matter before the Division Bench of the
Delhi High Court for consequential formal orders determining
the final compensation payable to them."
(Emphasis Supplied)
12. In MCD v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (supra), the
Supreme Court has awarded Rs. 10 Lakhs to the victims aged more than 20
years. It is relevant to note that the Uphaar Tragedy took place on the 13 th of
June, 1997 and the minimum wages at the relevant time ranged from Rs.
1,677/- for unskilled workers to Rs. 2437/- for graduates. It is thus clear that
although there was no proof of the income of the victims, the Supreme Court
did not find it proper to apply minimum wages.
13. Following the aforesaid judgement considering the business of
manufacture of card board boxes, the income of the deceased is presumed to
be Rs. 4500/- per month. 50% is added towards the future prospects and 1/3
is deducted towards his personal expenses. Applying the multiplier of 16 at
the age of 35, the loss of dependency of the deceased to computed at Rs
8,64,000/-. Rs.1,36,000/- is added towards loss of consortium, loss of love
and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses. The total compensation is
computed to be Rs. 10,00,000/-.
14. The Trial Court has awarded interest @6% per annum which is on a
lower side. The Supreme Court consistently awarded 9% interest in Amresh
Kumar v. Niranjan Lal Jagdish Parshad Jain (2015) 4 SCC 433,
Mohinder Kaur v. Hira Nand Sindhi (2015) 4 SCC 434 and Jitendra
Khimshankar Trivedi & Others v. Kasam Daud Kumbhar and Others.
(2015) 4 SCC 237. Following the aforesaid judgements, the rate of interest
is enhanced from 6% per annum to 9% per annum from the date of filing of
the suit.
15. The appeal is allowed and the decretal amount is enhanced from Rs.
4,16,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of
filing of the suit till realization.
16. Enhanced decretal amount be deposited by the respondent with UCO
Bank Delhi High Court Branch by drawing a cheque in the name of UCO
Bank A/c Rekha within 30 days.
17. The order for disbursement of the amount shall be passed after
hearing the appellants
18. The appellants shall remain present in Court on next date of hearing.
19. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsel for both the parties.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
JULY 8, 2015
ak
