Delhi High Court
Shivkala Sharma vs Manmohan Singh And Anr. on 27 March, 2015
$-6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 27th March, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 763/2012
SHIVKALA SHARMA ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Deepa Rai, Adv. with
Mr. Ankit Kumar Gulia, Adv.
versus
MANMOHAN SINGH AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 28.03.2012 whereby
compensation of Rs.2,06,124/- was awarded by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of the Appellant
for the death of Prashu Ram Sharma, who suffered fatal injuries in
a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 11.09.2001.
2. Initially, the Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) was preferred by the Appellant and
widow of the deceased. During the pendency of the proceedings
before the Claims Tribunal, the widow had not only re-married but
had stopped pursuing the Claim Petition.
3. The Claim Petition was converted under Section 163-A of the Act.
The Claims Tribunal took the income of the deceased as per the
minimum wages of an unskilled worker as Rs.2592/-, deducted 1/3
towards personal and living expenses and applied a multiplier of 9
as per the age of the mother of the deceased to compute the loss of
dependency as Rs.2,79,936/-.
4. It is urged by learned counsel for the Appellant that in a Petition
under Section 163-A of the Act, the compensation has to be
awarded strictly in accordance with the Second Schedule appended
to the Act and the multiplier also has to be adopted as given in the
Schedule.
5. Relying on Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance
Company Limited, (2004) 5 SCC 385, this Court in New India
Assurance Company Limited v. Pitamber & Ors., MAC
APP.304/2009, decided on 23.01.2012 had held that the Claimants
approaching the Court under Section 163-A of the Act can be
awarded compensation only on the basis of structured formula
given in the Second Schedule. Thus, the compensation has to be as
per the Second Schedule appended to the Act, 1988.
6. With regard to the income of the deceased, it is urged that the
deceased had left his studies while he was in 10th standard. He was
working as a cook and therefore, his income ought to have been
taken either of a non-Matriculate or of a skilled worker.
7. In the Claim Petition it was claimed that the deceased was working
as a cook. The certificate mark 'A' was also produced with regard
to his income. The said certificate, however, was not proved. The
Appellant's testimony as PW-2 that the deceased was working as a
cook and his skills were appreciated by his employers, were not
disputed.
8. In view of this, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to take the
income of the deceased as per the Minimum Wages Act which at
the time of the accident were Rs.3016/- per month for a skilled
person.
9. The loss of dependency will come to Rs. 4,10,176/- (Rs.3016/- x
12 x 2/3 x 17).
10. In addition, the Appellant will be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,000/-
towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss to estate.
11. The Appellant will also be further entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/-
for expenses towards medical treatment as awarded by the Claims
Tribunal. The overall compensation comes to Rs.4,29,676/-
12. The compensation is thus enhanced by Rs.2,23,552/-.
13. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till its payment.
14. Respondent no.2 Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation along with interest in UCO Bank, Delhi
High Court Branch, New Delhi within six weeks.
15. 50% of the enhanced compensation shall be released in favour of
the Appellant immediately on deposit. Rest 50% shall be held in
Fixed Deposit for a period of 2 years and 3 years in equal
proportion.
16. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
17. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 27, 2015
vk
