Delhi High Court
Smt. Krishna Devi & Ors vs Shri Tej Pal & Ors on 27 May, 2016
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 27.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 620/2014
SMT. KRISHNA DEVI & ORS
..... Appellant
Through Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Adv.
versus
SHRI TEJ PAL & ORS
..... Respondent
Through Mr. Mohan Babu Aggarwal, Adv. for
R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Baljit Singh, born on 08.08.1956, had joined as constable in Delhi
Police on 10.12.1976. He took voluntary retirement from the police service
on 01.04.2006 and was granted pension at `3,294/- per month. On
26.07.2006, he met with an accident involving negligent driving of DL IPB
4306 (the offending vehicle) and suffered injuries. He remained
hospitalized for treatment but unfortunately died on 18.08.2006. The
accident claim case (No.755/09), instituted on 21.02.2007 by the first to
third respondents (claimants), dependant family members of deceased Baljit
Singh, sought compensation under Sections 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (MV Act). In the said proceedings, the driver, owner and insurer
of the offending vehicle were impleaded as party respondents with the
averment that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the said
vehicle. The tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated 15.03.2014,
upheld the said case holding the driver of the offending vehicle, he being the
principal tort-feasor and the owner on account of vicarious responsibility,
liable to pay compensation. It assessed the compensation in the sum of
`5,07,956/-, calculating it thus :
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 3,07,956/-
2. Medical expenses. Rs. 1,30,000/-
3. Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/-
4. Loss of love and affection Rs. 25,000/-
5. Funeral &miscellaneous expenses Rs. 25,000/-
6. Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/-
-------------------
Total awarded compensation Rs. 5,07,956/-
-------------------
2. The insurer (third respondent) was directed to pay the abovesaid
amount, after adjusting the interim award of `50,000/- with interest at 7.5%
per annum to the claimants.
3. The claimants have come up in appeal questioning the calculation of
loss of dependency. They also submit that the non-pecuniary heads of
damages awarded and the rate of interest levied are inadequate.
4. Having heard the counsel for the claimants, and the insurer, who only
have appeared at the final hearing, this Court finds substance in the appeal.
The deceased had undoubtedly taken voluntary retirement but would
assumably have been still working for gain. Though his pension was
`3,294/- per month, the minimum wages of 3,464/- per month as calculated
by the tribunal would be over and above the monthly pension, which he
would be bringing home. After the death, it is conceded by the counsel for
the claimants, the widow started getting family pension which, under the
normal rules, would be 50% of the pension of the deceased. Since the
tribunal assumed the notional income at `3,500/-, 50% of the pension has to
be added to work out the loss of dependency. Therefore, the income is
calculated as (3,294 ÷ 2 + 3,500) `5,174/-.
5. Given the age at which the death had occurred, it being a few days
before he would have turned 50, the multiplier of 11 will have to be applied.
For the same reasons, the element of 50% towards future prospects has also
to be added. Thus, the notional income for assessing dependency loss is
calculated as (5,147 x 130 ÷ 100) `6,691/-. Applying the multiplier of 13,
after deduction of 1/3rd towards personal & living expenses, compensation
towards loss of dependency comes to (6,691 x 2 ÷ 3 x 12 x 13) `6,95,864/-
rounded off to `6,96,000/-.
6. 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. Including the award of `1,30,000/- towards
medical expenses, the total compensation payable in the case is computed as
(6,96,000 + 2,50,000 + 1,30,000) `10,76,000/-.
7. 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. Needless to add, the amount paid in
terms of the interim award shall be suitably refunded.
8. The award is modified accordingly.
9. The insurer is directed to pay the enhanced award by requisite deposit
with the tribunal within 30 days of this judgment making it available to be
released to the claimants.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(R.K. GAUBA)
JUDGE
MAY 27, 2016
VLD
