Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Police & Anr. vs Shanker & Ors. on 11 September, 2017
$~R-182
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 11th September, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 118/2010 and CM APPL.3680/2010 (stay)
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR. .... Appellants
Through: Nemo.
versus
SHANKER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Aakashi Devi, a widow, aged 50 years, died in a motor
vehicular accident that took place on 14.11.2007 due to negligent
driving of motor vehicle described as Tata 407 bearing registration
No.DL-1LE-3947 of the appellants. Her two sons and married
daughter, they being first to third respondents (collectively, the
claimants) instituted accident claim case (Old Suit No.36/08 and New
suit No.874/2008) on 14.01.2008. It appears that another person had
died in the same accident and, thus, there was another claim case, both
being clubbed by the tribunal for inquiry, on the conclusion of which a
common judgment was passed on 19.09.2009, accepting the cases to
the effect that deaths had occurred due to negligent driving of the said
vehicle by the fourth respondent (Desh Raj), employee of the
appellants. In the case of death of Aakashi Devi, compensation in the
total sum of Rs.9,71,000/- was awarded, which after deduction of the
interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/-, was directed to be paid with
interest by the appellants herein.
2. The appeal was filed primarily to question the calculation of
compensation by the impugned judgment. It was admitted and
directed to be put in the list of 'FINALS' to be taken up on its own
turn. However, no one has appeared for assistance on behalf of the
appellants or the other side when the appeal is taken up for hearing.
3. On perusal, it is found that the tribunal did commit error in
properly computing the calculation of compensation. Though it was
claimed that the deceased was earning by working part time as a tea
vendor, the evidence led in this regard was not credible. In the given
facts and circumstances, the proper course for the tribunal was to go
by the minimum wages (Rs.3516/-) payable to an unskilled worker
during the relevant period rather than jumping to the conclusion that
the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month.
4. The calculation of compensation in such cases in terms of
decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Master Manmeet Singh & Ors., ILR
(2012) IV Delhi 547, and of this court in Reliance General Insurance
Co Ltd versus Murgan & Ors, Mac App.1177/2014, decided on
25.02.2016 would require the loss of dependency to be worked out by
deducting one-third towards her personal and living expenses from
said notional income and applying the multiplier as per her age, it
being 13.
5. Thus the loss of dependency is calculated as (3513/- x 2/3 x 12
x 13) Rs.3,65,352/- rounded off to Rs.3,66,000/- (Rupees three lakhs
sixty six thousands only).
6. It is noted that the tribunal had awarded Rs.5,000/- towards
funeral expenses and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of love and affection.
Thus it was deficient. 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 on account of loss of love & affection and Rs.25,000/-
each towards loss of estate and funeral expense are added. Thus, the
total compensation payable in the case of death of Aakashi Devi is
computed as (3,66,000/- + 1,00,000/- + 25,000/- + 25,000/-) to
Rs.5,16,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Sixteen Thousand only).
7. The award is reduced accordingly. Needless to add, it shall
carry interest as levied by the tribunal.
8. By order dated 26.02.2010, the appellants had been directed to
deposit Rs.3,50,000/- with interest with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
Branch. By subsequent order dated 22.07.2010, an amount of
Rs.2,00,000 were released to respondent 1 to 3 in equal proportions
from out of the said deposited amount and the balance kept in fixed
deposit. The remainder of the said deposit shall also now be released
to the claimants.
9. The appellants will be obliged to deposit the balance of their
liability in terms of the modified award which they must do by
appropriate deposit with the tribunal within thirty days, making it
available to be released to the claimants.
10. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the appellants after
proof is shown of the award having been satisfied.
11. The appeal along with accompanying application stand disposed
of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 11, 2017
vk
