Delhi High Court
Nirmal Daisy Tully vs Pushpa & Ors on 12 August, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC. APP. 324/2010
% Date of Decision : 12th August, 2016
NIRMAL DAISY TULLY ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajendra Chaudhry, Adv.
versus
PUSHPA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant is the mother of Late Alok David Tully who died in a
road accident on 16th February, 2005. The appellant is seeking enhancement
of the award amount.
2. On 16th February, 2005, Alok David Tully was riding on his
motorcycle on the ring road near Moti Bagh flyover when he was crushed
under the blue-line bus bearing No.DL-1PA-5030. The deceased was
survived by his widow and mother. However, the widow alone filed the
claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. During the pendency of the claim
petition, the mother of the deceased, who is 100% blind, filed an application
for impleadment before the Claims Tribunal whereupon she was impleaded
as a co-petitioner before the Claims Tribunal.
3. The deceased was working as Security Supervisor with Bristol Hotel,
Gurgaon and was earning Rs.6,500/- per month at the time of the accident.
The Claims Tribunal added 50% towards the future prospects, deducted 1/3rd
towards the personal expenses of deceased and applied the multiplier of 17
to compute loss of dependency Rs.13,26,000/-. The Claims Tribunal
awarded Rs.10,000/- towards the lost of estate, Rs.10,000/- towards lost of
consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total
compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal along with interest @ 7.5%. is
Rs. 13,56,000/-
4. The appellant is seeking enhancement on the following grounds:-
(i) The deceased was working as Security Supervisor in a 5-Star
Hotel and in ordinary course, his income would be increased to
Rs.25,000/- and the compensation be computed by taking the
income of the deceased as Rs.25,000/-
(ii) The compensation be awarded for lo ss of love and affection.
(iii) The rate of interest be enhanced for 7.5% to 9%.
5. The deceased was working as Security Supervisor in a five-star hotel
and was earning Rs.6,500/- per month on the date of the accident, i.e., 16th
February, 2015. The deceased was aged 30 years at the time of the accident
and in normal course, the deceased would have served for another 30 years.
Even if we do not take the future prospects of promotion to which deceased
was entitled, the actual pay revision taken effect from 2005 to 2035 years,
the pay of deceased would be more than double. Hence, this is a fit case for
taking 100% increase in future income of the deceased. In New India
Assurance Company Limited v. Gopali and Others, (2012) 12 SCC 198 and
Vimal Kanwar and Others v. Kishore Dan and Others, (2013) 7 SCC 476,
the Supreme Court has determined the compensation by granting 100%
increase in the income of the deceased. Following the aforesaid decisions,
the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.13,000/- per month.
6. The Claims Tribunal has awarded interest @ 7.5%, which is on a
lower side. The Supreme Court has consistently awarded interest @ 9% per
annum. The rate of interest is, therefore, enhanced to 9% per annum.
7. Taking the income of the deceased as Rs.13,000/- per month,
deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and applying the multiplier of
17, the loss of dependency is computed at Rs.17,68,000/- [{13000 - (1/3rd of
13000) x 12 x 17)] adding Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection;
Rs.10,000/- towards consortium; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. Total compensation is computed at
Rs.18,08,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.
8. The appeal is allowed and the compensation is enhanced from
Rs.13,56,000/- to Rs.18,08,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from
the date of 29th April, 2005 until realisation.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of hearing that the
appellant aged about 65 years is 100% blind. The Certificate issued by Dr.
Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital is Ex.PW4-/1. Learned counsel for the
appellant further urged that the appellant completed B.Sc.(Hons) Nursing
from Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur College of Nursing, Andrews Ganj, New
Delhi in 1972 and she was employed as a lecturer for three years in the same
college from 1972 to 1975. On 20th November, 1975, the appellant went to
Libya as part of an arrangement between Indian Government and Libyan
Government, where she was employed under the Ministry of Libya. On 05th
September, 1983, the appellant met with a road accident in Libya while on
an emergency duty in which she suffered grievous eye injury. The appellant
took treatment for the eye in Libya, Spain, Bulgaria and England on which
she spend all her earnings. Since the appellant had resigned from her job as a
Lecturer in 1975, she did not receive any pension or other employment
benefits. The appellant's husband deserted her on 20th January, 1994 and is
unheard since then. The appellant's other two sons are settled abroad but are
not financially sound to support her.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant further urged that the appellant is
staying alone and does not have sufficient means to sustain herself. It is
further submitted that the Claims Tribunal awarded only 25% of the
compensation which is grossly inadequate for the appellant to sustain herself
owning to her medical condition. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed
that adequate compensation be awarded to enable the appellant to sustain
herself till she is alive.
11. This Court is of the view that the widow of the deceased has already
got more than adequate share and, therefore, the entire enhanced
compensation should be paid to the appellant only. Even otherwise,
respondent No.4 widow of the deceased is not seeking enhancement of the
award amount.
12. The enhanced compensation be deposited with UCO Bank, Delhi
High Court Branch by means of a cheque drawn in the name of UCO Bank
A/c Nirmal Daisy Tully within a period of four weeks.
13. List for reporting compliance on 13th September, 2016.
14. The appellant shall remain present in the Court on the next date of
hearing.
15. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to learned counsels for the
parties under signature of Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
AUGUST 12, 2016
ak
