Delhi High Court
Manju Sharma & Anr. vs Jyoti Sharma & Ors on 6 September, 2017
$~R-161
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 6th September, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 39/2010 and CM APPL.1563/2010
MANJU SHARMA & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Nemo.
versus
JYOTI SHARMA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Shyam Sunder Sharma, 47 years, working as computer operator
in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, suffered injuries in a motor
vehicular accident that occurred on 04.03.2005 due to negligent
driving of Maruti Wagon-R car bearing registration No.DL-3CT-4706,
admittedly insured against third party risk for the period in question
with the third respondent (insurer) and died in the consequence on
10.03.2005. The appellants, being his wife and son, instituted accident
claim case (MACT Claim Petition No.128/2008) under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 15.11.2008 seeking compensation.
The tribunal, after inquiry, by judgment dated 01.07.2009, upheld the
claim for compensation on the principle of fault liability awarding
Rs.23,36,000/- as compensation, fastening the liability on the insurer
to pay with interest @ seven and half per cent (7.5%) per annum, the
said amount including the expenditure on medicines and treatment
(Rs.1,05,000), towards loss of dependency (Rs.21,76,000/-), on
account of loss of love and affection (Rs.25,000/-), and under the
heads of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss to estate
(Rs.10,000/- each).
2. The appeal was filed seeking enhancement of compensation
taking exception primarily to the calculation of loss of dependency,
the contention of the claimants being that the income of similarly
placed other official of the Bank had increased over the period on
account of implementation of Sixth Pay Commission Report and that
the tribunal had failed to appreciate that the deceased would have risen
to the middle management grade over the period, the grievance also
concerning the awards under the non-pecuniary heads of damages.
3. The plea about the inadequacy of loss of dependency does not
appear to be correct. The tribunal accepted the income tax return (ITR)
(Ex.PW-1/J) for the assessment year 2004-2005, it being based on the
then salary of the deceased and after deducting income tax liability,
the element of future prospects of increase to the extent of thirty per
cent (30%) was added, this on the lines of dispensation in Sarla Verma
(Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC
121. The tribunal, thus, has taken care to take into account the
possibility of future rise in income.
4. The grievance about the inadequacy of non-pecuniary heads,
however, deserves to be accepted. Following the view taken 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/- each on account of loss of love & affection and loss of
consortium and Rs.25,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral
expense deserve to be granted. The award is modified accordingly.
This would result in net increase in the award by (Rs.2,50,000/- -
55,000/-) Rs.1,95,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Five Thousand
Only).
5. It is directed that the insurance company shall pay the enhanced
portion of the award with interest @ nine per cent (9%) per annum
from the date of filing of the petition with requisite deposit with the
tribunal within thirty days. The enhanced portion of the award with
corresponding interest shall fall to the share of the first claimant (the
first appellant) Manju Sharma, it to be released in her favour in the
form of interest bearing fixed deposit receipt, to be taken out in a
nationalized bank for a period of five years with provision to withdraw
monthly interest.
6. The appeal along with accompanying application stands
disposed of in above terms.
7. Dasti.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 06, 2017
vk
