Delhi High Court
Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr vs Laxmi Narayan & Ors on 8 March, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 08th March, 2019
+ LPA 124/2017 & CM. No. 6610/2017
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Appellants
versus
LAXMI NARAYAN & ORS ..... Respondents
+ LPA 125/2017 & CM. No. 6617/2017
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Appellants
versus
URMILA DEVI ..... Respondent
+ LPA 127/2017 & CM. Nos. 6625/2017 and 6627/2017
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Appellants
versus
MD RAFIQUE & ANR ..... Respondents
+ LPA 145/2017 & CM. No. 8099/2017
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Appellants
versus
PRATAP & ORS ..... Respondents
+ LPA 437/2017
LAXMI NARAYAN & ANR ..... Appellants
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
LPA 124/2017 and connected matter Page 1 of 10
+ LPA 438/2017
URMILA DEVI ..... Appellant
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
+ LPA 451/2017
PRATAP & ANR ..... Appellants
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
+ LPA 483/2017
NARENDER SINGH & ANR ..... Appellants
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent
+ LPA 790/2017
MD RAFIQUE & ANR ..... Appellants
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Present: Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Adv. for petitioners (in LPAs
124/2017, 125/2017, 127/2017 & 145/2017).
Ms. Aruna Mehta, Adv. for respondents
(in LPAs 124/2017, 125/2017, 127/2017 &
145/2017).
Ms. Aruna Mehta, Adv. for petitioners
(in LPAs 437/2017, 438/2017, 451/2017, 483/2017
& 790/2017).
Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Adv. for respondents
(in LPAs 437/2017, 438/2017, 451/2017, 483/2017
& 790/2017).
LPA 124/2017 and connected matter Page 2 of 10
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. As this batch of appeals arises from a common order passed by the
learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions filed by the next of kin of the
deceased, they are being disposed by this common order. Present batch of
appeals arises out of similar unfortunate circumstances involving hapless
victims, falling in unfenced, unprotected, uncovered and unguarded ganda
nala / manhole and succumbing to their deaths. Learned single judge has
considered the facts of all the individual writ petitions, and, while disposing
off the writ petitions vide a common order dated 3 rd November, 2016, seen fit
to award compensation to the claimants/next of kin of the deceased.
2. The batch of four appeals being LPA Nos. 124/2017, 125/2017,
127/2017 and 145/2017 have been filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi
challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge on November 03,
2016 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions filed by
the respondents herein and granted compensation to the respondents herein of
varying amounts for the unfortunate deaths of the respective victims, who
died after falling in ganda naala / manhole.
3. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (in
the aforesaid appeals preferred by the state) respondent is that the appellants
cannot be held responsible for the death of the deceased persons as it is the
case of the appellants that there are disputed question of fact, which require
determination through oral evidence and could not have been gone into by
the learned Single Judge in the writ petition.
4. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the age of the
victims and the minimum wage applicable at that time, based on a formula, as
noted by her in different judgments of the Supreme Court has granted the
compensation.
5. The only plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant does not
impress us as it cannot be disputed that the deceased have died after they fell
in the ganda naala / manhole which was slippery due to the negligent act of
the appellant. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
6. Insofar as the appeals filed by the appellants (being Next of kin of the
deceased) being LPA Nos. 437/2017, 438/2017, 451/2017, 483/2017 and
790/2017, who were the petitioners before the learned Single Judge, are
concerned, the same have been preferred only to the extent of seeking
enhancement of compensation so awarded. These appeals have challenged
the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the compensation
awarded is less / on a lower side. Learned counsel for the appellants in these
appeals has relied upon a judgment rendered by us in the case of Rajeev
Singhal & Anr. Vs. MCD (East Delhi Municipal Corp.) & Anr. LPA
379/2017, wherein this Court has, after referring to the various judgments
culled out a formula for computation of compensation. The relevant paras of
the judgment are reproduced as under:-
23. Finally, with regard to quantification of the compensation,
we may take note of the principles laid down in the case of
Kamla Devi (supra). According to the aforesaid judgment and
the principles that can be culled out on the complete reading
of the law laid down in the case of Kamla Devi (supra), we
find that the courts have evolved a two-tier mechanism for
assessment of compensation. The mechanism and the formula
laid down have two components. The first is the conventional
sum or the standard compensation and the second is the
pecuniary compensation.
xxx xxx xxx
28. We find that in the present case both the appellants
herein, namely, the father and the mother are earning. As per
income tax returns of the appellants which are available on
record, the average annual income of the appellant No.1
(father) based on the income tax returns for the three
assessment years 2010-2011 to 2012-2013 indicates that his
annual average income would come to Rs.2,22,741.66.
Similarly, based on the assessment of the income tax returns
of the aforesaid three assessment years, the annual average
income of the appellant No.2 (mother) would come to
Rs.2,03,471.66. It has been held in both these cases that the
annual income of the parents can be taken into consideration
for assessing the annual income of a child. If that be so, we
find that the total annual income of parents comes to
Rs.4,26,213.32 and if this is divided by 2, we can safely
conclude that the annual income of the deceased child can be
assessed at Rs.2,13,106.66. As per the formula laid down for
calculating the pecuniary loss, a multiplier of 15 can be
applied, considering the fact that the victim was 14 years of
age. In the case of Varinder Prasad (supra), it was noted that
as the deceased "would have grown up, his personal expenses
would have only risen. The contribution to the household
would not have exceeded half of the income." Accordingly, the
total annual income of the victim as indicated hereinabove,
i.e. Rs.2,13,106.66, has to be divided by 2 to arrive at the
same and thereafter it has to be multiplied with a factor
namely 1.5 to counter inflation and erosion of the value of
money and by multiplying it with 15 in terms of the multiplier
provided in the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the
pecuniary compensation works out to Rs.23,97,449.92.
29. As far as the standard compensation is concerned, it has
to be assessed by taking the average CPI(IW) with base year
1982. In the year 1989 as per Kamla Devi's case, the Index
was 171 and according to the Labour Bureau, Government of
India's Notification of July, 2014, the CPI(IW) with the base
year 2001 for the year 2014 is 252 and the linking factor
based on the general Index for the particular year would be
4.63. Therefore, the CPI(IW) as in July 2014 would be 252 x
4.63 i.e. 1166.76 and applying the formula for calculation of
standard compensation, it would be:
Rs.50,000 x 1166.76/171 = Rs.3,41,157.89."
7. The two components of total compensation are to be quantified as
follows:
1. Pecuniary Compensation:
A Notional average annual income of deceased
(Of the deceased, or of the parent, if minor)
B Deduction
(By a factor, on account of decreasing contribution to
family income)
C Multiplier Factor
(In terms of judgement of Supreme Court in National
Indsurance Co. Vs Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680)
D Multiplier to counter inflationary aspects
Formula:
((A - B) X C X D)
2. Standard Compensation:
Formula:
(50,000 X CPI (IW) Index for the concerned month (with base year
1982)) / 171
("171" being the Index Number in 1989)
(May also use CPI(IW) Index number with base year 2001 and
multiply the same with linking factor 4.63 to arrive at relevant
index number with 1982 base)
8. For the purpose of arriving at the notional income of the deceased, we
may refer to average monthly income of the deceased / parents of deceased.
In LPA 437/2017, appellant No.1, father of the deceased, is stated to be
running a shop of Kabari, and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The appellant in
LPA 438/2017 is stated to have been a rikshawpuller, earning about
Rs.5,000/- per month. Parent of the deceased, in LPA 451/2017 is also stated
to be running a Kabari shop, earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Father of the
deceased, appellant in LPA 483/2017 is stated to be a motor mechanic
earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Mother of the deceased, in LPA790/2017 is
state to have passed away during pendency of the appeal, and consequently
substituted by her LRs. As on the date of incidence, she is stated to have
been working as a labourer, earning Rs.6,000/- per month. We may clarify
that the aforenoted figures have been taken either from the appeals itself
(LPA 437/2017 & LPA 438/2017) or from the compilations as filed by Ms.
Aruna Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants, (pursuant to submissions
made during the course of arguments) which have been taken on record.
9. On the basis of the aforesaid formula and taking into account the
income as noticed above, we proceed to compute the compensation as under:-
For Pecuniary Compensation:
Appeal A B C D Compensation
E
(Using formula
noted above)
LPA 6000 (per 1/2 (Being 18 1.5 Rs. 9,72,000/-
437/2017 month) unmarried)
(36000x18x1.5)
(72000
annual)
LPA 5000 (per 1/3 (Being 18 1.5 Rs.10,80,000/-
438/2017 month) married)
(40000x18x1.5)
(60000
annual)
LPA 6000 (per 1/2 (Being 15 1.5 Rs. 8,10,000/-
451/2017 month) unmarried)
(36000x15x1.5)
(72000
annual)
LPA 8000 (per 1/2 (Being 15 1.5 Rs.10,80,000/-
483/2017 month) unmarried)
(48000x15x1.5)
(96000
annual)
LPA 6000 (per 1/2 (Being 15 1.5 Rs. 8,10,000/-
790/2017 month) unmarried)
(36000x15x1.5)
(72000
annual)
For Standard Compensation:
Appeal Relevant Compensation
CPI (IW)
F
Index
Number (Using
formula noted
above)
LPA 529 Rs. 154678/-
437/2017
(June 2005)
LPA 529 Rs. 154678/-
438/2017
(June 205)
LPA 574 Rs. 167836/-
451/2017
(August
2006)
LPA 602 Rs. 176023/-
483/2017
(June 2007)
LPA 525 Rs. 153508/-
790/2017
(March
2005)
Total Compensation:
Appeal Total
Compensation
(E + F)
LPA Rs. 1126678/-
437/2017
LPA Rs. 1234678/-
438/2017
LPA Rs. 977836/-
451/2017
LPA Rs. 1256023/-
483/2017
LPA Rs. 963508/-
790/2017
10. Appellants are therefore held to be entitled to compensation as
computed above, along with interest @ 9% per annum to be calculated from
the date of the presentation of the writ petition till actual payment is made.
Appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
MARCH 08, 2019/jg
