Delhi High Court
Rajni Parida & Ors. vs Dharampal Singh And Ors. on 31 May, 2016
$~R-124
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 31.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 59/2008
RAJNI PARIDA & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.Nitin Yadav, Adv.
versus
DHARAMPAL SINGH AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Bhaskar Chand Parida, then aged 26 years, qualified vocationally
trained, employed as junior technician with M/s Leroy Somer & Controls
India Pvt. Ltd., suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred
on 28.08.2004 due to negligent driving of motor vehicle described as Ashok
Leyland Container bearing No. HR 38A 4401 (offending vehicle) and died
in the consequence. His widow and three other dependent family members
(appellants) instituted an accident claim case (Petition No. 1200/2004) on
13.10.2004, seeking compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), impleading the driver, owner and insurer of
the offending vehicle as respondents, they being first to third respondents in
appeal.
2. Upon inquiry, by judgment dated 06.09.2007, the tribunal accepted
the case that death had occurred due to negligent driving of the offending
vehicle. This finding has attained finality as it was not challenged by any
appeal. The tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 11,68,760/-
with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till
realization in favour of the claimants, the said amount inclusive of Rs.
11,48,760/- towards loss of dependency, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of
consortium, love and affection and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses.
3. Feeling aggrieved, and contending that the compensation that has
been awarded is inadequate, the present appeal was filed by the claimants.
4. The appeal was entertained and notice issued by order dated 5th May,
2008. Noticeably, the insurer had appeared on advance notice. Inspite of
service, the other respondents did not appear to contest. Though the matter
was referred to Lok Adalat for amicable settlement, the dispute could not be
resolved. At the hearing, none has appeared on behalf of the insurer to
assist.
5. Arguments of the appellants have been heard.
6. It is noted that the claimants had proved by certificate (Ex.PW2/1)
that the deceased had undergone regular vocational training as an electrician.
Sudha Kumar (PW-2), Executive of Human Resources with M/s Leroy
Somer & Controls Pvt. Ltd., inter alia, on the basis of salary certificate
(Ex.PW1/1) that the deceased was employed as Junior technician initially as
a temporary employee on 06.03.2000 and was confirmed in service w..e.f
01.01.2001. The tribunal found the emoluments earned by him in the said
capacity to be Rs. 9,573/- per month. Though PW-2 referred to growth
manual (Ex.PW-2/2) and also deposed about periodic rise in income, the
tribunal declined to grant any future prospects of income on the evidence
led. It deducted 1/3rd towards personal & living expenses and applied the
multiplier of 15 to work out the loss of dependency.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the claimants and having gone
through the record, this Court finds merit in the contention that the evidence
on record clearly provided irrefutable evidence showing progressive rise in
the income towards future prospects of increase. Since the deceased was a
regular employee and was vocationally trained, periodic increase in income
by increments was inherent in the terms and conditions of the service. In
these circumstances, per dictum in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the element of future
prospects to the extent of 50% deserves to be added [see judgment dated
28.03.2016 in MAC.APP. 548/2013 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Kamla & Ors.] . Since there are four dependent family members deduction
on account of personal & living expenses had to be factored in to the extent
of 1/4th and having regard to the age (26 years), the multiplier of 17 deserves
to be applied. Thus, calculating the loss of dependency is re-calculated as
(9573 x 150 ÷ 100 x 3 ÷ 4 x 12 x 17) Rs. 21,97,003/- rounded off to Rs.
21,98,000/-.
8. Following the view taken in Madhu Marwaha & Anr. vs. Dal Chand
& Anr. in FAO 102/2001 decided on 1st February, 2016, non-pecuniary
damages in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss
of love & affection and Rs. 10,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss
to estate are added. Thus, the total compensation in the case comes to Rs.
(21,98,000 + 1,20,000) Rs. 23,18,000/-.
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. Given the apportionment already granted in favour of the other
claimants, it is directed that the entire enhanced portion of the compensation
including on account of effect of the increase in the rate of interest shall fall
to the share of the first appellant (widow) Rajni Parida alone. The insurer is
directed to satisfy the award by requisite deposit with the tribunal within 30
days of this judgment.
11. The tribunal shall release the amount payable under the enhanced
award by putting it in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank of the choice of
the first appellant for a period of seven years with right to draw monthly
interest
(R.K. GAUBA)
JUDGE
MAY 31, 2016
nk
