Delhi High Court
Radha Yadav And Ors. vs Pradeep Rawat And Ors. on 2 May, 2016
$~R-56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 02nd May, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 467/2007
RADHA YADAV AND ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: None
versus
PRADEEP RAWAT AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Prashant Yadav, then serving as sub-Inspector in Delhi Police,
suffered injuries in motor vehicular accident that occurred on 26.03.2005
involving negligent driving of Maruti van No.HR 26 N 9310 (offending
vehicle) and consequently died. His dependent family members (appellants)
instituted an accident claim case (MACT.No.468/05) on 28.10.2005 before
the motor accident claims tribunal (tribunal) seeking compensation,
impleading the National Insurance Company (insurer) as one of the
respondents (it being third respondent before the tribunal), in addition to the
driver/owner of the offending vehicle. The tribunal held inquiry and, by
judgment dated 25.04.2007, upheld the case of the claimants about the death
having occurred due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
Compensation in the sum of ₹ 23,07,500/- was awarded with interest at
7.5% per annum in favour of the claimants and the insurer was directed to
pay. The said amount includes ₹50,000/- assessed to be medical expenses
incurred prior to the death, ₹5,000/- each towards loss of consortium, loss
of estate, transportation charges and funeral expenses besides ₹22,42,500/-
towards loss of dependency. To calculate the loss of dependency, the
tribunal took the income of the deceased at ₹14,375/-, it being the net salary
as against salary slip (Ex.PW1/A) showing the gross emoluments to be in
the sum of ₹15,915/-. The tribunal added future prospects of increase,
applied the multiplier of 13 and deducted 1/3rd towards personal & living
expenses.
2. By the appeal at hand, the claimants submitted that the assessment
made by the tribunal is erroneous as the salary has not been properly
computed, element of future prospects has not been properly factored in and
the multiplier applied is unduly low. They also contended that the awards
under non-pecuniary heads of damages are inadequate.
3. At the hearing, neither side has appeared, even though the matter was
adjourned on the previous date for similar reasons. There is no good
grounds to adjourn this old appeal yet again.
4. Upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the grievance about
the inadequacy of compensation is correct. Therefore, it needs to be
reassessed.
5. The salary certificate clearly shows that total emoluments were
₹15,915/-. The deductions of which no benefit was given were contributions
towards general provident fund and health insurance. There is no reason
why the said amounts should be kept out of purview in calculating the
notional income. Given the fact that the deceased was in the regular
government employment, the element of future prospects has to be added.
Having regard to the age at which the death occurred, this ought to be to the
extent of 50%. Having regard to the fact that the deceased was 33 years, the
multiplier of 16 would apply.
6. Thus, the total compensation on account of loss of dependency is
recomputed as (15,915 x 150 ÷ 100 x 2 ÷ 3 x 12 x 16) ₹30,55,680/- rounded
off to ₹30,56,000/-.
7. Following the view taken in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors.,
(2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150,
compensation in the sum of `1 lakh each on account of loss of love &
affection and loss of consortium and `25,000/- each towards loss of estate
and funeral expense are added. Adding the component of ₹50,000/-
towards medical expenses, the total compensation payable in the case comes
to (₹30,56,000 + 2,50,000 + 50,000) ₹33,56,000/-.
8. 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.
9. The award is modified as above.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed
that the entire enhanced portion of the award with the proportionate interest
shall be payable only to the first appellant (first claimant) widow.
11. The insurance company is directed to satisfy the enhanced award by
requisite deposit with the tribunal within 30 days whereupon it shall be
released to the claimants.
12. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 02, 2016
VLD
