Delhi High Court
Smt Anarkali & Anr vs Shri Vijay Pal Yadav & Ors on 18 April, 2018
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 18th April, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 861/2013
SMT ANARKALI & ANR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajnish K. Jha, Adv.
versus
SHRI VIJAY PAL YADAV & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Adv. for R3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. Deepak Kumar, bachelor son, aged 24 years, of the first
appellant, died due to the injuries suffered in a motor vehicular
accident that occurred on 07.02.2011 on account of rash driving of the
bus bearing registration no. DL-1PB-8766 (the bus), the first
respondent being at the wheels, it being registered in the name of the
second respondent and concededly insured against third party risk, for
the period in question with the third respondent (insurer). The
accident claim case (MACT 92/2011) was instituted on 21.04.2011.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment
dated 26.04.2013, it accepted the case of the claimants, holding the
bus driver responsible for the fatal accident. It awarded compensation
in the total sum of Rs.4,81,800/-, this inclusive of Rs.4,36,800/-
towards loss of dependency, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and
affection, Rs.10,000/- towards cremation charges and Rs.10,000/- for
loss of estate. The tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum and has directed the insurer to pay.
2. Feeling aggrieved with the quantum of compensation, the
claimants have come up to seek enhancement.
3. The submissions of the appellants/claimants are that the tribunal
fell into error by assuming the income on the basis of minimum wages
at Rs.5,278/- rather than going by the evidence about his income from
Worldwide Flight Service India Pvt. Ltd. where he was engaged as a
loader, his salary having been proved by pay-slip (Ex-PW2/2) at
Rs.5,711/- per month. The claimants further point out that the tribunal
has not factored in the element of future prospects and has apllied the
multiplier of 14, ignoring the fact that the deceased was 24 years old.
Placing reliance on the ruling of 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., suitable
corrections in the award are prayed.
4. The submissions of the claimants in appeal are found to be
correct. Indeed, the claimants have proved that the deceased was
employed, though temporarily, as a loader with the afore-mentioned
entity. In these circumstances, the element of future prospects to the
extent of 40% should have been added. Further, having regard to the
age of the deceased, the multiplier of 18 would apply.
5. It was also argued on behalf of the claimants that having regard
to the fact that the claimants included a younger brother, the deduction
on account of personal and living expenses should have been restricted
to 1/3rd. This submission cannot be accepted. It is a case of a
bachelor's death where only the widowed mother can be treated as the
dependent, in absence of any proof of dependency of the junior
sibling, who admittedly was an adult at the time of the cause of action.
6. Thus, the compensation is re-determined. The loss of
dependency is computed as [5711 x 140 ÷ 100 ÷ 2 x 12 x 18]
Rs.8,63,503/- rounded off to Rs.8,64,000/-.
7. Keeping in view the dispensation of Pranay Sethi (supra), the
non-pecuniary damages in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each under the
heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses only can be added. In this
view, the total compensation comes to [8,64,000 + 15,000 + 15,000]
Rs.8,94,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Ninety Four Thousand Only).
The award is enhanced accordingly.
8. 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.]
9. The tribunal had apportioned 25% of the awarded amount to the
second appellant. There being no challenge, the said dispensation shall
remain undisturbed. However, it is clarified that the entire enhanced
portion of the award including the amount payable on account of
increase in the rate of interest shall go to the first appellant (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.
10. The third respondent (insurer) is directed to satisfy the award as
modified above by requisite deposit with the tribunal within 30 days
making it available for it to be released to the claimant.
11. The appeal is disposed off in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
APRIL 18, 2018/uj
