Rajender Kumar Sharma vs Moti Ram & Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 5037 Del

$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                     Judgment delivered on: 15th July, 2015

+       MAC.APP. 1090/2012
RAJENDER KUMAR SHARMA                                   ..... Appellant
                 Represented by:                  Mr. Sandeep Sharma,
                 Advocate

                         Versus

MOTI RAM & ANR                                         ..... Respondents
                               Represented by: Mr. R.L. Goel and
                               Ms. Anju Gupta, Adv. for respondent
                               Nos. 2 & 2a / MCD.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. No. 1142/2015 (delay)

1. Vide the instant application; the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 446 days in filing the review petition. Notice in this instant application was issued on 30th January, 2015 but no reply has been filed thereto.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 2(a) has opposed the said application and submitted that there is no explanation for delay, therefore, the application is to be dismissed.

3. Keeping in view the averments made in the said application and submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, the delay of 446 days in filing the review petition is condoned.

4. The application is allowed.

Rev. Petition No.23/2015 in MAC.APP. 1090/2012

1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks review of judgment dated 22.08.2013 passed by this Court in MAC Appeal No.1090 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in MAC. APP. No. 1090/2012, the appellant argued that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 20 years whereas the Learned Tribunal has considered the age of father and applied the multiplier 8 while granting compensation. Whereas, in the case of Mohd. Hasnain & Ors. V. Jagram Meena & Ors. decided in MAC. APP. No. 152/2014 with Batch of Appeals on 24th March, 2014, this Court has held that while applying the multiplier, age of the deceased to be taken into consideration instead of age of the parents.

3. Learned counsel further submits that in the present case, age of the deceased, at the time of the accident, was 20 years. However, the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier 8 taking into consideration the age of the father of the deceased.

4. Vide order dated 22nd August, 2013, this Court applying the view taken by the Supreme Court in a case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. Vs. Trilok Chandra and Ors.,

(1996) 4SCC 362, and Sarla Verma Vs. DTC & Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 121 has affirmed the view taken by the Learned Tribunal and dismissed the appeal.

5. However, keeping in view, the decision of this Court in Mohd. Hasnain (supra) which has been reiterated by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain and another vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others in Civil Appeal No.4497/2015 dated 15.05.2015, the view taken by this Court on multiplier in its judgment in MAC App.1090/2012 dated 22nd August, 2013 does not sustain, therefore, I recall the said order.

6. In view of the above, since the age of the deceased in this case was 20 years, therefore, the multiplier of 18 shall be applied. As per the trial court's calculation, the total loss of dependency of the deceased, after deduction towards the personal expenses, come out to Rs.2,100/- per month and after applying the multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency comes out to (Rs.2100x12x18) + Rs.4,53,600.

7. It is pertinent to mention that this Court noticed that the trial court in its impugned judgment in Para 8, although mentioned the multiplier of 8, however committed an error in calculating and calculated the loss of dependency by applying multiplier of 13. Accordingly, granted compensation of Rs.3,27,600/- instead of Rs.2,01,600/-. The error is neither noticed nor mentioned by the counsels for the parties. Therefore, appellant had received Rs.1,26,000/- along with its interest as an additional amount than

the actual amount arised after applying the multiplier 8. Hence the appellant is only entitled to the balance amount, i.e., 4,53,600 - Rs.3,27,600=Rs.1,26,000/-.

8. The present petition has been filed with delay of 446 days, therefore, the respondents are accordingly directed to pay the enhanced balance compensation of Rs.1,26,000/- to the petitioner along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition before the learned Tribunal till the date of his appeal dismissed, i.e., 22.08.2013. The amount shall be paid within eight weeks, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to 12% interest on the delayed payment.

9. The Review Petition is allowed with no order as to costs.

SURESH KAIT, J JULY 15, 2015 rs/RS