Delhi High Court
S. K. Taneja vs Amarjeet Singh on 29 March, 2016
$~R-43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 29th March, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 426/2007
S. K. TANEJA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhary, Adv. with
Mr. Rajiv Trivedi, Adv.
versus
AMARJEET SINGH ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Anjana Taneja (born on 01.09.1954), working as a stenographer in
Punjab National Bank at the then gross salary of Rs.14,314/- per month, died
as a result of injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that occurred at
about 6.15 PM on 30.05.2000 when the scooter bearing registration
No.DAK 5568 (the scooter) on which she was riding pillion was involved in
a collision with a blue line bus bearing registration No.DL 1PA 1974 (bus),
admittedly insured against third party risk with the third respondent (insurer)
for the period in question. Her husband and two children brought a claim
petition under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M V Act)
before the motor accidents claims tribunal (tribunal) on 23.10.2000
whereupon it was registered as suit No.411/2000. In the claim petition, the
insurer, driver and the registered owner of the bus were impleaded as party
respondents, on the basis of pleadings that the accident had occurred due to
rash/negligent driving of the bus which had hit the scooter from behind.
This contention was upheld on the basis of evidence led.
2. By judgment dated 13.03.2007, the tribunal awarded compensation in
the sum of Rs.15,15,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of
filing of the petition till realization in favour of the claimants (now
appellants before this Court). Since the insurance policy cover was
admitted, the insurer was directed to satisfy the award.
3. The compensation awarded by the tribunal included Rs.14,84,892/-
calculated as loss of dependency to which Rs.25,000/- was added as
composite damages on account of loss of love & affection and loss of
consortium besides Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.
4. Feeling aggrieved with the award granted, the claimants have come
up in appeal seeking enhancement. It is pointed out by the claimants that the
tribunal had excluded Rs. 65/- payable as conveyance allowance to the
deceased while computing the income on basis of which loss of dependency
had to be worked out. It is further pointed out that the tribunal applied the
multiplier of 11, ignoring the fact that the deceased was 45 years and 9
months old at the time of her death and, thus, assuming her age as of 46, the
multiplier of 13 would have been the appropriate basis of calculating the
loss of dependency. The claimants further submitted that the non pecuniary
damages and rate of interest are inadequate.
5. There is merit in the contention with regard to the deduction of
conveyance allowance. The evidence on record shows that it was part of the
terms and conditions of the regular service of the deceased with the bank
and, thus, the said amount cannot be excluded. After all, it would have
resulted in corresponding savings to the deceased [see judgment dated
17.03.2016 in MAC. APP. No. 1210/2012 Shakuntla Gautam v. Ravinder
Kumar]. Thus, the dependency has to be worked out on the basis of income
of (13,749 + 65) `13,814 per month.
6. It is, however, noted that the tribunal added the future prospects to the
extent of 50%. Given the age of the deceased, per the dictum in Sarla
Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC
121, the said element cannot be more than 30%. Thus, the notional income
on which loss of dependency has to be calculated is computed as (13,814 x
130 ÷ 100) `17,958/-, rounded off to `17,960/-. Since the number of
dependants is three, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal and living
expenses. Therefore, the loss of monthly dependency is worked out as
(17,960 x 2 ÷ 3) `11,974/-.
7. There is merit in the contention of the claimants that the multiplier of
13 was the correct basis to calculate the loss of dependency, inasmuch as the
deceased was approximately 46 years old [see judgment dated 18.02.2016 in
MAC. APP. No. 636/2009 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha Vashisht].
In this view, the loss of dependency is calculated as (11,974 x 12 x 13)
`18,67,944/- rounded off to `18,68,000/-.
8. With regard to grievance about inadequate award towards non-
pecuniary heads, following the view taken by this Court in Madhu Marwaha
& Anr v. Dal Chand & Anr. (FAO No.102/2001) decided on 01.02.2016,
having regard to the date of accident (30.05.2000) and the facts and
circumstances of this case as noted above, non-pecuniary damages in the
sum of `50,000/- on account of loss of consortium, `50,000/- on account of
loss of love & affection, `10,000/- on account of funeral expenses and
`10,000/- on account of loss of estate total `1,20,000/- are hereby added.
Thus, the total compensation in the case comes to (18,68,000 + 1,20,000)
`19,88,000/-. The compensation is enhanced accordingly.
9. Following the consistent view taken by this Court [see judgment dated
22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta
Devi & Ors.], the rate of interest is increased to 9% per annum from the date
of filing of the petition till realization.
10. The tribunal had apportioned the award amongst the three claimants
by specifying their shares. In the facts and circumstances, it is directed that
the entire enhanced portion of the award with proportionate interest shall be
payable to the first appellant (the husband) only. The insurer (third
respondent) is directed to deposit the amount payable in terms of
modification in the award as above with the tribunal within 30 days of this
judgment whereupon the same shall be released.
11. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 29, 2016
VLD
