Delhi High Court
Sarbari & Anr vs New India Assurance Co Ltd on 8 September, 2015
Author: Pratibha Rani
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 8th September,2015
+ MAC.APP. 1188/2012
SARBARI & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.F.A.Bansirael, Advocate
versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Pankaj Seth, Advocate
PRATIBHA RANI, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act has been
filed by the appellants namely Smt.Sarbari and Sh.Shafiq Ahmad - parent of
the deceased Tazeem Hasan @ Guddu, impugning the award dated 4th
April, 2011 passed in Claim Petition bearing MACT No.321/2010 whereby
a compensation of ` 4,29,670/- has been awarded by the learned Tribunal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 6th April, 2009, appellant No.1
Smt.Sarbari was going on a scooter driven by her son Tazeem Hasan. When
they reached in front of ITS Hospital, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad, U.P., they
were hit by a dumper bearing No.HR-38-H-7401. In the said accident
appellant No.1 Sarbari suffered serious injuries while her son Tazeem Hasan
succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
3. Based on the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Tribunal
awarded a total compensation of `4,29,670/- (inclusive interim
compensation) under the following heads:-
Loss of dependency ` 3,96,000/-
Loss of love and affection ` 10,000/-
Loss of estate ` 10,000/-
Funeral charges ` 5000/-
Medical charges ` 8670/-
TOTAL ` 4,29,670/-
4. The challenge to the award is mainly on the ground that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too low and cannot be said to be
just compensation as envisaged under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act,
1988. The deduction from income of the deceased to the extent of 50%
towards personal expenses as well the correctness of the multiplier applied
by the Tribunal have also been impugned.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone
through the record.
6. It is admitted case of the parties that Tazeem Hasan, son of the
appellants/claimants died due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident
occurred on 6th April, 2009.
7. No appeal has been filed by the owner and driver of the offending
vehicle and finding by the Tribunal on the point of negligence has attained
finality.
8. The award is impugned mainly on two grounds:-
(i) The deceased was supporting his parents as well siblings thus instead
of 50% deduction towards personal expenses, it should have been 1/3rd from
the income of the deceased;
(ii) As per the election identity card exhibit PW-1/2 the age of appellant
No.1 Smt.Sarbari as on 1st January, 2008 was 47 years. The date of accident
is 6th April, 2009. Thus the appellant No.1 was above 48 years of age on that
date but the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of '11' referring to the age of
the appellant No.1 as 54 years which is contrary to the record.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reviewed the law with regard to the
selection of multiplier and deduction towards personal and living expenses
and held that uniformity has to be achieved in payment of the compensation.
The Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation, 2009 (6) Scale 129 laid down the following principles for
grant of compensation in death cases:-
I. DEDUCTION FOR PERSONAL AND LIVING EXPENSES:
Deceased - unmarried
(i) Deduction towards persons expenses - 1/2 (50%)
(ii) Deduction where the family of the bachelor
is large and dependent on the income of the
deceased. - 1/3rd (33.33%)
Deceased - married
(i) 2 to 3 dependent family members - 1/3rd
(ii) 4 to 6 dependent family members - 1/4th
(iii) More than 6 family members - 1/5th
(iv) Subject to the evidence to the
contrary - Father, brother
and sisters will not
be considered as
dependents.
II. MULTIPLIER
Age of the deceased (in Multiplier
years)
10. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the appellants fairly
conceded that there is no evidence to prove that the deceased Tazeem Hasan
was the only bread earner of his family and his parents & siblings were
financially dependent on him. The deceased Tazeem Hasan was aged about
24 years and also bachelor at the time of his death in the fatal accident.
Hence, in view of the settled legal position as laid down in Sarla Verma's
case (Supra), the learned Tribunal, while computing the compensation, has
rightly deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses and no
interference is warranted by this Court on this count.
11. Next contention raised before this Court is regarding the correctness
of the multiplier applied in this case. It may be necessary to mention here
that the deceased was bachelor and the multiplier to be selected for the
purposes of awarding compensation has to be as per the age of the
claimants. As per election identity card exhibit PW-1/2 the appellant No.1,
who is mother of deceased Tazeem Hasan, was just about 48 years at the
time of death of her son.
12. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla
Verma's case (supra), the correct multiplier has to be '13' as against the
multiplier of '11' applied by the Tribunal.
13. The Three Judge Bench decision in U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandara
(1996) 4 SCC 362 shall be taken as a binding precedent in the matter of
selection of multiplier as per the age of the deceased or the Claimant. Thus,
following Sarla Verma's case (supra) which was followed in the case
reported as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr (2013) 9 SCC
65, the loss of dependency comes to `4,68,000/- [`6,000/- X 12 = ` 72,000/-
(annual income of the deceased) - ½ of annual income (towards personal
expenses = ` 36,000/- X 13 (multiplier) = ` 4,68,000/-].
14. In view of the three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in
Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54, the appellants are
entitled to further enhancement and awarded compensation of ` 90,000/-
towards loss of love and affection and ` 20,000/- towards funeral expenses.
15. Thus, the overall compensation to the which the appellants are now
entitled is as under-
Under the head Compensation Compensation Compensation
granted by enhanced by to which
Tribunal this Court appellants now
entitled
Loss of dependency ` 3,96,000/- ` 72,000/- ` 4,68,000/-
Loss of love and `10,000/- ` 90,000/- ` 1,00,000/-
affection
Loss of estate `10,000/- - ` 10,000/-
Funeral charges `5000/- ` 20,000/- ` 25,000/-
Medical charges ` 8670/- - ` 8670/-
TOTAL ` 4,29,670/- ` 1,82,000/- ` 6,11,670/-
16. The respondent, Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation of ` 1,82,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing the claim petition with the Tribunal concerned
within four weeks from the date of this order.
17. As per the award passed in MACT No.321/2010, the apportionment
of compensation amount done by the learned Tribunal is that the appellant
No.1 will get ` 3,86,703/- and the appellant No.2 will get `42,967/-.
However, it is directed that on deposit of the enhanced compensation of
`1,82,000/- awarded by this Court, the same shall be equally released in
favour of both the appellants.
18. Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
As prayed, copy of the order be given dasti to learned counsel for the
parties.
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
SEPTEMBER 08, 2015
'pg'
