Delhi High Court
Vijay Mohan & Anr vs Pawan Kumar & Ors on 2 August, 2017
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 02nd August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 493/2008
VIJAY MOHAN & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: None
versus
PAWAN KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Pankaj Kumar, a bachelor, employed with Delhi Airport Service
Pvt. Ltd as a Cargo Executive, died in a motor vehicular accident that
had occurred on 06.04.2006 due to negligent driving of a bus bearing
registration no.DL-1PB-1738, which was admittedly insured against
third party risk with the third respondent (insurer) for the period in
question. His parents and two siblings jointly filed an accident claim
case (petition no.427/2006) impleading the insurer as a party in
addition to the driver and the owner of the bus, they being the first and
second respondents herein.
2. After inquiry, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal)
rendered its decision by judgment dated 27.05.2008 holding that a
case for claim for compensation on no fault liability principle had
been made out. It awarded compensation in the total sum of
Rs.7,20,000/- and directed the insurer to pay with interest at the rate of
9% p.a. in favour of the heirs (the appellants, herein). The said
amount of compensation included Rs.6,60,000/- calculated as loss of
dependency besides Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.50,000/- on account of loss of love and affection.
3. The appeal at hand was filed seeking enhancement raising
contentions about inadequacy of the calculation on account of loss of
dependency and under non-pecuniary heads of damages.
4. The appeal was admitted and directed to be listed in the
category of 'regulars' by order dated 08.02.2017. When it came up
for hearing, neither side appeared. Inspite of notice duly served on the
claimant and their counsel, there is no appearance on their behalf.
5. The learned counsel for the insurer on which the liability was
fastened has been heard and the record perused.
6. It is found that there is a case made out for the award of
compensation to be revised. It is noted that the claimant had proved,
inter alia, through the evidence of Krishan Kant Sharma (PW-4), an
Executive (HR) of Delhi Airport Service Pvt. Ltd., that the deceased
was employed as a Cargo Executive at emoluments of Rs.10,000/-
p.m. It was a contractual job initially for a period of one year. There
was no reason, in the face of such evidence, for the Tribunal to take
the wages at reduced rate of Rs.7,500/- p.m. The Tribunal further fell
into error by making a deduction of one-third towards personal and
living expenses forgetting that it was a claim in the case of a death of a
bachelor. Having taken note of the age of the parents (51 years and 45
years respectively) it invoked the wrong multiplier of 11. The award
under the non-pecuniary heads of damages is also found to be
deficient.
7. Thus, the calculation on loss of dependency is redone.
Deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses, and applying
the multiplier of 13 which should have been appropriate, against the
last drawn income of Rs.10,000/-, the loss of dependency is calculated
as (Rs.10,000 / 2 x 12 x 13) Rs.7,80,000/-.
8. Following the rulings in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors.,
(2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC
150, non-pecuniary damages in the amounts of Rs.1 Lakh towards loss
of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- each towards loss to estate and
funeral expenses are added. Therefore, the total compensation comes
to (Rs.7,80,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.25,000/-)
Rs.9,30,000/-.
9. The award is modified accordingly. It shall carry interest as
levied by the tribunal.
10. The third respondent shall satisfy the enhanced portion of the
award by depositing it with the tribunal within thirty days of today, the
entire enhanced portion with corresponding interest shall be released
by the Tribunal in the name of the second claimant (appellant /
mother) in the form of fixed deposit receipt in a nationalized bank for
a period of five years with right to draw monthly interest.
11. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 02, 2017
yg
