Delhi High Court
S. Charanjit Singh & Anr. vs A.K. Yadav And Ors. on 31 May, 2016
$~R-120
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 31.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 34/2008 & CM Nos.889/2008 & 890/2008
S. CHARANJIT SINGH & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: None.
versus
A.K. YADAV AND ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Satnam Singh, son of the appellants, a bachelor, died as a result of
injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 06.06.2005
involving negligent driving of motor vehicle described as Tata truck No. HR
38 2711 (offending vehicle), admittedly insured against third party risk with
fourth respondent (insurer) for the period in question. The appellants
instituted an accident claim case (Petition No. 183/2005) on 12.07.2005
seeking compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (MV Act), impleading the said driver as party, in addition to driver,
owner and registered owner of the offending vehicle. The motor accident
claims tribunal (tribunal) clubbed the said case with other two similarly
placed accident claim cases arising out of the same accident and held
inquiry. By common judgment dated 19.05.2007, the case of the appellants
about death having occurred due to negligent driving of the offending
vehicle was upheld, the said finding having attained finality as it was not
further challenged in appeal.
2. By the aforementioned judgment, the tribunal awarded compensation
in the sum of ` 3,58,800/- with interest @ 7% per annum in favour of the
claimants and directed the insurer to pay, after adjusting ` 50,000/- which
had been earlier paid in terms of the order under Section 140 of MV Act.
3. The claimants feeling aggrieved filed the present appeal submitting
that the compensation awarded is inadequate.
4. Notice on the application for condonation of delay was issued on 3 rd
March, 2008. On 22nd April, 2010, it was submitted on behalf of the
appellant that it presses the appeal only against the insurance company
(fourth respondent). It was noted that the insurance company had by the
time been served and had even put in appearance. The matter was directed
to be shown in the category of regular matters to come up on its own turn.
Thereafter, whenever the matter was taken up on 23rd December, 2014, none
had appeared for the appellant. Notice was issued for 9th January, 2015, for
the parties to appear before the roster bench. The first appellant appeared
in response on 9th January, 2015 but only to seek adjournment. None has
appeared on the matter being taken up again. This appeal is now the oldest
appeal on the board of this Court, and, therefore, there is no good reason to
defer it yet again.
5. The grounds of appeal and the tribunal's record have been perused. It
is noted that though the claimants had pleaded that the deceased was earning
` 12,000/- per month and was also assessed to income-tax, the first claimant
having testified that the deceased was earning his livelihood by running his
business in the name and style of Chana Enterprises at Khyala Village,
conceded during cross-examination that he was actually earning ₹ 200 to
₹ 300 per month from the job work of sheet metals. No proof of assessment
to income-tax was formally adduced. In absence of any clear evidence as to
the nature of employment or earnings, the tribunal was constrained to make
assessment on the basis of minimum wages and, thus, worked out the annual
dependency loss to be in the sum of ₹ 27,600/- and, applied the multiplier of
13, taking note of the fact that the claimants were 48 and 45 years
respectively old on the date of accident. The choice of multiplier (13) also
cannot be faulted.
6. The claimants have also submitted that the tribunal did not make any
award under the non-pecuniary heads of damages. This submission is
correct. Following the view taken by this Court in Madhu Marwaha & Anr.
vs. Dal Chand & Anr. In FAO 102/2001 decided on 1st February, 2016,
award in the sum of ` 50,000/- each towards love & affection and loss of
consortium and ` 10,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss to estate
are added. This would result in net increase in the compensation by
` 1,20,000/-.
7. Following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of interest
is increased to 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till
realization. [see judgment dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors.].
8. Given the apportionment made by the tribunal earlier, it is directed
that the entire enhanced portion of the award including on account of
increase in the rate of interest shall fall to the share of the second claimant
(Harjinder Kaur) appellant. The insurer (fourth respondent) is directed to
satisfy the enhanced portion by requisite deposit with the tribunal within 30
days. Upon such deposit being made, the tribunal shall release the amount
to the second appellant (Harjinder Kaur) by investing it in a fixed deposit
receipt for a period of five years with right to draw monthly interest.
9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
10. Since the award has been modified, a copy of this judgment shall be
sent by the registry to the claimants and the insurance company by
registered post at their respective given addresses.
(R.K. GAUBA)
JUDGE
MAY 31, 2016
nk
