Delhi High Court
Suresh Wati vs Ramesh Walia & Ors. on 14 November, 2017
$~R-481
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on : 14th November, 2017
+ MAC.APP.356 /2012
SURESH WATI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. J.S. Kanwar, Adv.
versus
RAMESH WALIA & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Naveen Kumar, aged 24 years, a bachelor, died in accident that
occurred on the night of 26/27.07.2010 due to negligent driving of
truck bearing registration No. HR 38K 6773, by the second
respondent, it being a vehicle registered in the name of first
respondent and insured against third party risk with the third
respondent. His parents (the appellants) (the claimants) instituted
accident claim case (MAC Petition no. 817/2010) on 07.04.2010
seeking compensation. The tribunal, by judgment dated 01.10.2011,
awarded Rs. 5,31,520/- as compensation with interest @ 7.5 % per
annum, fastening the liability on the third respondent (insurer).
2. The appeal seeks enhancement of the compensation primarily
on the grounds that the contention of deceased earning his livelihood
at Rs.400/- per day from a private restaurant (Khushi Restaurant) was
wrongly rejected and the multiplier of 14 wrongly applied according
to the age of the mother, the awards of Rs. 10,000/- each towards loss
of love & affection and loss to estate and Rs. 5,000/- on account of
funeral expenses as well as the rate of interest also being inadequate.
3. Having heard the learned counsel and having gone through the
record, this Court finds reasons set out by the tribunal in not accepting
the claim about the income from the restaurant to be correct. Mere
reliance on food licence cannot suffice. Some further proof to indicate
the turnover of the restaurant or the income generated from such
business was necessary. In these circumstances, the tribunal correctly
went by the minimum wages payable in State of Uttar Pradesh.
4. The tribunal, however, committed error by adding the element
of future prospects of increase in income to the extent of 50%.
Following the dispensation of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court rendered on 31.10.2017 in SLP (C) 25590/2014, National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., such element of
future prospects will have to be restricted to 40%. At the same time,
the multiplier of 18 would apply as per age of deceased, in view of the
rulings in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.
5. The loss of dependency is thus, recalculated as (4020 x 140
÷100 ÷ 1/2 x 12 x 18) Rs. 6,07,824/-, rounded off to Rs. 6,08,000/-.
Instead of the awards under the non-pecuniary heads of damages
granted by the tribunal, following the dispensation in Pranay Sethi
(supra), the awards of Rs. 15,000/- each towards loss of estate and
funeral expenses are added.
6. Thus, the total compensation in the case comes to (6,08,000 +
15,000 + 15,000) Rs. 6,38,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Thirty Eight
Thousand only). The award is increased accordingly.
7. Following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of
interest is increased to nine per cent (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. The entire enhanced portion of the award, with the effect of
corresponding increase in rate of interest, shall go to the share of first
appellant Suresh Wati (mother) only, it to be released to her in the
form of interest bearing fixed deposit account taken out from a
nationalized bank in her name for a period of seven years with right to
draw periodic interest.
9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 14, 2017
nk
