Delhi High Court
Ram Kishan & Ors. vs Rajbir Singh & Ors. on 10 October, 2017
$~R-303
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 10th October, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No.159/2011
RAM KISHAN & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: None.
versus
RAJBIR SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Praveen, a bachelor, aged about 22 years, son of the appellants,
suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on
17.11.2006 due to negligent driving of motor vehicle described as
Rural Tansport Vehicle bearing registration no. DL 1VA 3303 (RTV)
and died in the consequence. Accident claim case (MACT No.
144/2008) was instituted on 17.07.2007 seeking compensation
impleading the driver, owner and insurer of the RTV, they now being
first to third respondents in the appeal. The case was clubbed by the
tribunal for inquiry with another similarly placed case arising out of
the same accident. Both cases were decided by common judgment
dated 01.10.2010. In the claim submitted by the appellants, the
compensation was awarded in the total sum of Rs. 5,49,000/-, it
having been calculated thus:-
S.No. Heads Compensation
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 4,79,000/-
2. Loss of love & affection Rs. 50,000/-
3. Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/-
4. Loss to estate Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs. 5,49,000/-
2. The liability to pay was fastened on the third respondent with
interest @ 9% per annum.
3. The present appeal was filed expressing grievances about the
computation of loss of dependency and inadequacy of non-pecuniary
damages.
4. The appeal was put in the category of 'regulars' as per order
dated 19.04.2012. Upon it being taken up there is no appearance on
behalf of the claimants. The matter has been heard with the assistance
of counsel for third respondent and by perusal of the record of inquiry
before the tribunal.
5. Though the claimants had pleaded that the deceased was
earning Rs. 10,000/- per annum from job of film editing, no formal
proof in this regard was adduced. The oral word of the first claimant
Ram Kishan (PW-1) in this regard is unsubstantiated and cannot be
acted upon. In these circumstances, the tribunal was constrained to go
by the minimum wages. It took note of the fact that the deceased was
a matriculate and correctly adopted the minimum wages payable to a
matriculate during the relevant period.
6. In these circumstances, no case is made out for any
improvement in the award under the head of loss of dependency.
7. However, the award under the non-pecuniary damages are
found to be inadequate. Following the rulings in Rajesh & Ors. v.
Rajbir Singh & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V.
Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150, compensation in the sum of
Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of loss of love & affection and Rs. 25,000/-
each towards loss of estate and funeral expense are added. Thus, there
will be net increase in the award by Rs. 80,000/-. The increased
portion of the award shall carry interest as levied by the tribunal and
fall to the share of the second appellant Jeet Kaur (mother).
8. The insurer is directed to satisfy the modified award by
requisite deposit with the tribunal within thirty days, making it
available to be released.
9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 10, 2017
nk
