Delhi High Court
Dharampal Singh & Anr vs Mam Chand & Ors on 22 January, 2016
Author: R. K. Gauba
$-9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 12th January, 2016
Pronounced on: 22nd January, 2016
+ MAC APP. 176/2012
DHARAMPAL SINGH & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. O P Mannie, Adv.
versus
MAM CHAND & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv. for
R-3.
Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv. for
R-6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J:
1. On 03.12.2009, at about 04:30 AM, Sanjay aged 23 years, while
travelling in Eicher Tempo bearing registration no.UP-15N-5278
(hereinafter referred to as "the tempo") suffered injuries on account of
the said vehicle meeting with an accident against another vehicle
described as traula bearing registration no.HR-38M-9418 allegedly on
account of negligence on account of drivers of both. Since Sanjay died
as a result of the injuries, the claim petition under Section 160 read with
Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
"the MV Act") was preferred by his parents in a case registered as suit
no.21/2010 before the motor accident claims tribunal (hereinafter
referred to as "the tribunal") impleading the driver, owner and insurer of
both the vehicles as respondents.
2. By judgment dated 20.09.2011, the tribunal granted compensation
in the sum of Rs.5,33,078/- in favour of the claimants who are now in
appeal before this court under Section 173 of MV Act seeking
enhancement of the same.
3. The appeal has been contested by the respective insurers of the
two vehicles. Concededly, the deceased was a bachelor at the time of
his death and is survived by his parents (claimants/appellants). It was
claimed before the tribunal that he was working as a driver earning
Rs.10,000/- per month. The first appellant (the father of the deceased)
appeared in evidence (as PW1) on the strength of his affidavit
(Ex.PW1/A) to prove the said claim though also affirming that at the
time of the accident, the deceased was present on the tempo as a helper.
No evidence showing that the deceased had actually ever worked as
driver was adduced. Against this backdrop, the tribunal assessed the
loss of income assuming notionally the earnings on the basis of
minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker at Rs.3,953/- (in force
w.e.f. 01.08.2009). The tribunal found on the basis of evidence adduced
that the age of the father and mother, the claimants, at the time of death
was 45 years and 39 years respectively. For the purpose of calculations,
on the basis of average age of 42 years, the multiplier of 14 was adopted
for calculating loss of dependency. The tribunal further added
Rs.20,000/- on account of loss of love and affection and Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral expenses and, thus, directed compensation in the total
sum of Rs.5,33,078/-.
4. The grievances of the appellants are to the following effect:-
(a) Since the age of the deceased was 23 years, the multiplier of
18 should have been adopted;
(b) The deceased was a driver by profession and, therefore, the
minimum wages payable to a skilled worker (Rs.4377/-)
should have been treated as the notional income;
(c) The personal living expenses of the deceased have been
wrongly discounted at 50% and that having regard to the
judgment in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 362, the deduction
should have been made only to the extent of one third;
(d) The award under non-pecuniary heads is on the lower side and
loss of estate also required to be compensated.
5. The objection as to the multiplier of 14 is not correct. Since the
claimants are parents of the deceased, who was unmarried, multiplier
has to be adopted having regard to the age of the surviving parents.
Following the dictum in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. DTC & Anr., (2009) 6
SCC 121 as affirmed in Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan &
Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, the multiplier of 14 has been correctly applied
by the tribunal.
6. The mere claim that the deceased was working as a driver cannot
suffice. The affidavit of PW1 itself shows that he was working, not as a
driver, but as a helper on the vehicle in which he was travelling at the
time of the accident. There is no proof that he was a skilled worker.
Therefore, the grievance of the appellants/claimants about the rate of
minimum wages is also unmerited.
7. The deceased was unmarried. Therefore, the law laid down in
Sarla Verma (supra) reiterated in Reshma Kumari (supra), required the
tribunal to deduct 50% of the amount towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased for working out the loss of dependency. This
has been rightly done by the tribunal. In the face of the judgment in
Sarla Verma (supra) and in Reshma Kumari (supra), the rule in Trilok
Chandra (supra) cannot apply.
8. Having regard to the judgment in Rajesh & ors. vs. Rajbir Singh
& ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 a learned Single judge of this court in similarly
placed claim case lodged by the parents of the unmarried son, reported
as United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Rakesh & Ors., 2015 V
AD, (Delhi) 370, had awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and
affection, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards
loss of estate. The said precedent deserves to be followed and, thus,
similar award is made on account of loss of love and affection, funeral
expenses and loss of estate in the matter at hand. As a result, the
compensation awarded by the tribunal through impugned judgment
deserves to be enhanced by Rs.1,00,000/-, raising it to Rs.6,33,078/-,
rounded off to Rs.6,34,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs Thirty Four Thousand).
The award is modified accordingly, subject to the other conditions,
including on account of interest, apportionment of the award in favour
of the two appellants, apportionment of the liability and protection of
the awarded compensation, as directed by the tribunal in the impugned
judgment.
9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 22, 2016/ssc
