Delhi High Court
Umed Singh & Ors. vs Mahipal & Ors on 15 September, 2017
$~R-217
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 15th September, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 423/2010
UMED SINGH & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Ms. Kavita Tyagi, Advocate with
Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate
versus
MAHIPAL & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate for
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Kulwant Singh, 20 years old, a bachelor son of the appellants
herein, suffered injuries and died in the consequence on account of
motor vehicular accident that took place on 21.05.2007 involving
negligent driving of tempo bearing registration No.DL-1LD-6397, by
first respondent, admittedly insured against third party risk with the
third respondent (insurer) for the period in question. The appellants
had instituted accident claim case (Petition No.795/2009) on
07.07.2007 seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated
20.03.2010, upheld the case, returning finding that the accident had
occurred causing death due to negligent driving of the said vehicle. It,
however, calculated the compensation, particularly under the head of
loss of dependency in terms of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 assuming notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-
per month in terms of second Schedule appended to the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. This assumption was apparently erroneous.
Generally, in such like cases, the Tribunal follows the dispensation
under the Minimum Wages Act. There is nothing on record to show
as to why this case was treated differently.
2. Since the accident had occurred on 21.05.2007, the minimum
wages of Rs.3470/- payable to an unskilled worker are taken as the
notional income. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% would have
to be deducted on account of personal and living expenses and the loss
of dependency calculated on the basis of multiplier of 11, correctly
chosen by the Tribunal with reference to the age of the mother. The
loss of dependency is, thus, re-calculated as (3470/- /2 x 12 x 11)
Rs.2,29,020/- , rounded off to Rs.2,30,000/-.
3. It is noted that the non-pecuniary damages awarded in the sum
of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- each
towards loss to estate and funeral expenses are highly 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.
4. Thus, the total compensation payable in the case is computed
as (2,30,000/- + 1,00,000/- + 25,000/- +25,000/-) Rs.3,80,000/-
(Rupees Three Lakh Eighty Thousand Only).
5. The award is enhanced accordingly.
6. It is directed that the enhanced portion of the award shall carry
interest @ nine per cent (9%) per annum, it falling entirely to the share
of the second appellant (Nirmala Devi), mother of the deceased. The
third respondent (insurer) is directed to satisfy the enhanced award by
requisite deposit with the tribunal within thirty days.
7. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 15, 2017
vk
