United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Mahendra Singh Yadav & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 7575 Del

$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                            Date of Decision: 23rd December, 2016
+      MAC.APP. 608/2015 & CM 13551/201

       UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
                     Through: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate.

                          versus

       MAHENDRA SINGH YADAV & ORS         ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for
                              respondents no.1 and 2.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

                             JUDGMENT

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.43,36,002/- has been awarded to respondents no.1 and 2.

2. The accident dated 13th January, 2012 resulted in the death of Kapil Yadav. The deceased was aged 23 years at the time of the accident and was pursuing B.Tech(Civil) from Maharshi Markandeshwar University, Ambala. The Claims Tribunal assumed the income of the deceased as Rs.25,000/- per month, added 50% towards future prospects, deducted 50% towards his personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 18 to compute the loss of dependency as Rs.40,50,000/-. Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation charges. Total

compensation awarded is Rs.43,36,002/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged at the time of hearing that the future prospects should not be taken into consideration and the multiplier of 13 be applied according to the age of the mother.

4. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that respondent no.1 was aged 40 years and the multiplier according to the age of the mother would be 15. Respondent no.1 submits that he has filed the ration card which contains age of the mother. It is further submitted that the Claims Tribunal has rightly taken the future prospects of the deceased into consideration.

5. With respect to the income and future prospects of the deceased taken by the Claims Tribunal, this Court agrees with the Claims Tribunal that the deceased, who was pursuing B.Tech, would have earned Rs.25,000/- per month on completing the B.Tech and it is fair and reasonable to add 50% towards further prospects. There is no infirmity in the Claims Tribunal adding 50% towards future prospects to compute the loss of dependency. However, there is merit in the second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the multiplier be taken according to the age of the mother. The respondents have filed the Aadhaar Card according to which age of the mother was 48. The respondents have also filed the Ration Card, according to which the age of respondent No.1 would be 40, which is not believable because Ration Card gives the year of birth of respondent No.1 as 1972 and the year of birth of the elder son, Sunil as 1986 meaning thereby that respondent No.1 would be 14 years old

when Sunil was born. On the other hand, the age of the respondent No.1 would be 48 as per the Aadhaar Card meaning thereby that Sunil would have been born when respondent no.1 would have been 22 years old. The age of respondent No.1 at the time of the accident is therefore taken as 48 years and the multiplier is, reduced from 18 to

13. Taking the income of the deceased as Rs.25,000/-, adding 50% towards future prospects, deducting 50% towards his personal expenses and applying multiplier of 13, loss of dependency is computed to be Rs.29,25,000/-. Adding the compensation towards loss of love and affection, loss of estate, future prospects and litigation expenses as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the total compensation is computed to be Rs.30,80,000/-.

6. The appeal is partially allowed and the compensation amount is reduced from Rs.43,36,002/- to Rs.30,80,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 06 th February, 2002 up to realisation.

7. The appellant has deposited the entire award amount with the Registrar General of this Court out of which 50% amount has been released to respondents No.1 and 2.

8. List for disbursement of the balance award amount on 06th January, 2017.

9. The Accounts Officers of this Court shall compute the amount liable to be refunded to the appellant in terms of this judgment on the next date of hearing.

10. Respondents No.1 and 2 shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing.

11. Pending application is disposed of.

12. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to learned counsels for the parties.

DECEMBER 23, 2016                                     J.R. MIDHA, J.
ak