Delhi High Court
Ms. Vikas vs Sh. Ram Kumar Misra & Ors on 2 May, 2016
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 02.05. 2016
+ MAC.APP. 738/2014 & CM No.13183/2014 and 13185/2014
Ms. VIKAS ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Alka Chojar, Advocate
versus
SH. RAM KUMAR MISRA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. By judgment dated 05.04.2014, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(tribunal) while upholding the claim case (no.443/2014) brought by the first
to seventh respondents (claimants) on 09.01.2012, about death of Kalawati,
a house wife, aged more than 65 years, in a motor vehicular accident that
occurred on 02.11.2011 involving motor cycle bearing registration no.HR-
12G 2419 (offending vehicle), inter alia, held the appellant, concededly the
registered owner of the offending vehicle, liable jointly and severely with
Sushil (eighth respondent), the driver, to pay compensation in the sum of
₹4,45,621/- with interest, the said amount inclusive of loss of dependency
computed as ₹2,94,720/-, on the basis of assumption that the deceased
would have been earning ₹7,368/-, an amount equivalent to monthly
minimum wages payable to a non matriculate, applying the multiplier of 5.
2. The appeal questions the computation of loss of dependency on the
ground that there was no reason why the minimum wages of a non-
matriculate were adopted as against the minimum wages of an unskilled
worker. It is further the contention of the appellant that the tribunal having
held that none of the petitioners were dependent upon the earnings of the
deceased as they are all married (apparently, this observation having come
vis-à-vis second to seventh respondents only), deduction on account of
personal expenses only to the extent of 1/3rd was erroneous.
3. It is correct that the deceased was not engaged in any regular
employment, for which reason her income for the purposes of loss of
dependency had to be assessed notionally. In these circumstances, it was
not proper to pick up the minimum wages of a non-matriculate which
essentially apply to the category of clerical, non-technical or supervisory
staff. The minimum wages of ₹6,656/- payable to an unskilled worker at
that point of time would have been the correct benchmark.
4. Further, it was revealed during the inquiry before the tribunal that
second to seventh respondents are adult married children of the deceased.
They could not conceivably have been dependent on her for financial
support. The loss of dependency thus will have to be treated as one
suffered only by the husband (first respondent). Therefore, the deduction
towards personal and living expenses should have been made to the extent
of 50%.
5. In these circumstances, the loss of dependency is re-calculated as
(₹6656/2 x 12 x 5) ₹1,99,680/-, rounded off to ₹2 Lakh. Adding the other
components of non pecuniary damages as awarded by the tribunal, the total
compensation payable in the case comes to (₹2,00,000/- +1,35,000/- +
₹15,901/-) ₹3,50,901/-, rounded off to ₹3,51,000/-. Needless to add, the
award shall carry interest as levied by the tribunal. The compensation shall
be apportioned in the manner directed by the tribunal.
6. The appellant submits through counsel that in terms of the directions
in order dated 13.08.2014, 50% of the amount awarded by the tribunal with
proportionate interest has already been deposited with the Registrar General,
which has been released to the respective claimants. The appellant shall
now deposit the balance liable to be paid in terms of the award modified as
above with the tribunal within 30 days of today making it available for being
released to the claimants.
7. The statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded only after the award
has been satisfied.
8. The appeal and the pending applications are disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 02, 2016
yg
