Delhi High Court
Lt. Col. Sube Singh Thukrana & Anr. vs Sajamuddin & Ors. on 4 January, 2018
$~R-710A
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on :- 4th January, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 18/2013
LT. COL. SUBE SINGH THUKRANA & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: None.
versus
SAJAMUDDIN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Priyadarsi Acharya, Adv.
for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Sumit Kumar Thukrana, a 19 year old bachelor, suffered
injuries in motor vehicular accident that occurred on 07.11.2007, due
to negligent driving of motor vehicle described as Tata Tempo bearing
registration no. DL 1M 3025 and died in the consequence. The
accident claim case (MACT 201/08/11), instituted on 29.01.2008, by
his parents (the claimants), resulted in judgment dated 03.11.2011,
with the findings that the accident had occurred leading to the death on
account of negligence on the part of the first respondent in driving the
said vehicle. The tribunal found that the vehicle in question was
registered in the name of the second respondent and insured against
third party risk for the period in question with the third respondent
(insurer). It awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,69,464/- and
directed the third respondent (insurer) to pay with interest @ 7.5% per
annum, calculating it thus:-
S.No. Heads Compensation
1. Loss of dependency (2973/- x 12 Rs. 4,99,464/-
x 14)
2. Loss of love and affection* Rs. 50,000/-
3. For funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/-
4. Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs. 5,69,464/-
2. It may be added here that the insurer had taken the plea that the
first respondent (the driver) was not holding a valid or effective
driving licence. It led evidence to this effect which was accepted and
on that basis recovery rights were granted in favour of the insurer
against the first and second respondents.
3. The claimants instituted the present appeal raising the grievance
that the compensation awarded was inadequate. The appeal was put in
the list of 'regulars' by order dated 30.08.2017. When it is called out
for hearing, there is no appearance on behalf of the appellants or first
or second respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the third respondent has been heard and
with his assistance the record perused.
5. The claimants were unable to muster any clear proof of income
of the deceased. They, however, proved that he was a matriculate.
The tribunal assumed the income on the basis of minimum wages (Rs.
3964/-) payable to a matriculate during the relevant period. It added
the element of future prospects of increase in income to the extent of
50% and made deduction of personal and living expenses to the extent
of 50% and then invoked the multiplier of 14 in view of the age of the
claimants. The appellants have raised the contention that the deceased
was a student of a course leading to the degree of bachelor of dental
surgery and, therefore, his income should have been calculated more
than that of a matriculate. In the given facts and circumstances,
however, in absence of any other clear proof of the probable earnings
of the deceased, the approach of the tribunal on the issue cannot be
faulted. It is at the same time correct on the part of the insurer to
contend that given the ruling of a 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., the element of
future prospects will have to be restricted to 40%. But, the grievance
of appellants about the multiplier is also correct. Following the ruling
of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Pranay Sethi (supra), the
multiplier of 18 should apply. Thus, the loss of dependency is
recalculated as (3964 x 140 ÷100÷ 2 x 12 x 18) Rs. 5,99,356.80,
rounded off to Rs. 6,00,000/-.
6. The contention of the insurer about impropriety of the non-
pecuniary damages must also be accepted. Following the dispensation
in Pranay Sethi (supra), in lieu of the awards under different heads of
non-pecuniary damages granted by the Tribunal, Rs.15,000/- each for
loss of estate and funeral expenses are added. The compensation in
the case is calculated as (6,00,000 + 15,000 + 15,000) Rs.6,30,000/-
(Rupees Six lakh and thirty thousand only). The award is modified
accordingly.
7. Following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of
interest is increased to 9% (nine percent) 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.]
8. It is directed that the entire enhanced portion of the award
including the amount payable on account of increased rate of interest
shall fall to the share of second appellant (mother) only. The third
respondent is directed to satisfy the enhanced award by requisite
deposit with the tribunal within 30 days, making it available to be
released. Needless to add, the recovery rights shall remain
undisturbed.
9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JANUARY 04, 2017
nk
