Delhi High Court
Bimla Uniyal & Anr. vs Hardeep Singh & Ors. on 24 November, 2017
$~R-565
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 24th November, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 846/2012
BIMLA UNIYAL & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar,
Advocate
versus
HARDEEP SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for
R-3/insurance company
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Chirag Uniyal, 24 years old, suffered injuries in a motor
vehicular accident that occurred on 22.02.2009 due to negligent driving
of a motor vehicle described as one car bearing registration no.DL-
3CBE-1737, admittedly insured against third party risk with the third
respondent (insurer) for the period in question, and died in the
consequence. His parents (claimants) instituted accident claim case
(suit no.80/10) on 04.02.2010 which was decided by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), by judgment dated 13.02.2012,
whereby compensation in the total sum of Rs.5,88,169/- was awarded
with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a, the direction to pay the same
having been issued against the insurer.
2. The appeal at hand was filed by the claimants submitting that the
award is inadequate, the grievance particularly being on rejection of
their claim that the deceased was earning Rs.18,000/- p.m. from private
employment. During the pendency of the appeal, with permission
taken from the court, the claimants have examined additional witness
Karan Malik (AW-1), Deputy Branch Manager of ICICI Bank, Patel
Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Indeed there were some deficiency in the evidence led before the
tribunal about the employment of the deceased at the time of death,
reliance primarily being placed at that stage on the testimony of Rajesh
Seth (PW-3), Manager (Administration), Vishesh Infotecnics Ltd.
where the deceased was stated to be employed as a Customer Care
Executive at a salary of Rs.18,000/-. The said witness proved Income
tax declaration form. The tribunal was, however, not satisfied. The
declaration form was issued for the Income Tax Department (Ex.
PW3/1) particularly in the context of the deceased, he being described
as an employee of the said entity.
4. In the course of additional evidence, the claimants have proved
the receipt of the salary by the deceased for the four months reflected
in the declaration form (Ex. PW3/1) by cheques, copies whereof have
also been proved (Ex. AW1/2 to AW1/4). It is clear that the said
cheques bear the dates corresponding to the payment of the salary
reflected in the income tax declaration form (Ex. PW3/1) and
substantiate, beyond all doubts, the claim that he was in receipt of a
regular income of Rs.18,000/- p.m.
5. In these circumstances, there is no reason why loss of
dependency be not calculated on such basis.
6. The element of future prospects of increase to the extent of 50%
would also deserve to be added in view of the ruling of the
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. The multiplier of 18 will have to be applied having
regard to the age of the deceased at the time of death.
7. Thus, loss of dependency is re-calculated as [Rs.18,000/- x
150/100 / 2 x 12 x 18] Rs.29,16,000/-.
8. Following the ruling in Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.15,000/- each
towards loss to estate and funeral expenses are added.
9. Thus, the total compensation in the case comes to
[Rs.29,16,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/-] Rs.29,46,000/- (Rupees
Twenty nine lakh and forty six thousand only).
10. 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.]
11. It is directed that the entire enhanced portion of the award with
corresponding interest shall fall to the share of the first claimant /
Bimla Uniyal (mother) only, it to be released to her in the form of fixed
deposit receipt taken out from a nationalized bank for a period of ten
years with right to draw periodic interest. The insurer is directed to
satisfy the award by requisite deposit with the tribunal within 30 days
making it available to be released to the claimant.
12. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 24, 2017
yg
