Delhi High Court
Rajesh Kumar & Anr vs Ravindar Kaul & Ors on 19 February, 2020
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 19th February, 2020
+ MAC.APP. 633/2016
RAJESH KUMAR & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.Suresh Chandra, Mr.Mukesh
Kumar and Mr.Rinendra Kumar,
Advocates
versus
RAVINDAR KAUL & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Vikram Gujral and Mr.Prem Lal,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal
whereby compensation of Rs.20,28,700/- has been awarded to the claimants.
2. On 13th April, 2011, Bal Krishan Kaul was waiting at the bus stop on
national highway near Airtel Building when he was hit by motor cycle No.
DL-4SAZ-6474 which resulted in fatal injuries. The deceased was aged 64
years at the time of the accident and he was working with BPTP Ltd. after
retirement from Border Security Force. The deceased was survived by his
widow, two sons and two daughters who claimed compensation.
3. The Claims Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.42,707/-;
deducted 50% towards the personal expenses and applying the multiplier of
7 to compute the loss of dependency as Rs.1,79,370/-. The Claims Tribunal
awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.1,00,000/-
towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Total compensation awarded is
Rs.17,93,700/-.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that
the income of the deceased has not been duly proved. It is submitted that the
compensation amount is liable to be reduced.
5. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that income of the deceased
has been duly proved by leading additional evidence. It is submitted that the
deceased retired from Border Security Force and was drawing a pension of
Rs.13,050/- per month. It is submitted that the widow of the deceased was
drawing Rs.6,420/- per month as family pension. It is further submitted that
PW-3 appeared before this Court and proved the income of the deceased as
retainer at a remuneration of Rs.40,000/- per month.
6. The deceased was working as a retainer with M/s BPTP Ltd. Vide
order dated 06th October, 2016, this Court directed the claimants to produce
the income tax returns, assessment orders and passbook of the deceased in
which his salary and pension were being deposited.
7. The claimants could not produce the relevant documents on the
ground that the deceased was having bank account with Royal Bank of
Scotland which has been closed and the Income Tax Returns were not
traceable. The claimants sought permission to lead evidence which was
granted vide order dated 22nd September, 2017.
8. The claimants examined the Senior General Manager (Compliances)
of BPTP Ltd. as PW-3 who deposed that the deceased joined BPTP Ltd. as
Deputy Manager (Accounts) on 01st November, 2015. PW-3 proved the
letter dated 01st November, 2005 as exhibit PW-3/B, letter dated 01st May,
2006 as PW-3/C, letter dated 12th August, 2006 as PW-3/D, letter dated 17th
April, 2007 as PW-3/E, letter dated 18th October, 2007 as PW-3/F, letter
dated 06th May, 2008 as PW-3/G and letter dated 12th May, 2010 as PW-3/H.
PW-3 further deposed that the deceased resigned on 02nd March, 2011 when
he was retained as the retainer at a consolidated amount of Rs.40,000/- per
month vide letter dated 02nd March, 2011 which is Ex. PW-3/I.
9. The Claims Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as
Rs.42,707/-. However, the Claims Tribunal erred in not considering that the
deceased resigned from the service on 02nd March, 2011 and was, therefore,
working as a retainer meaning thereby that Rs.40,000/- per month was the
professional receipt out of which the deceased would have incurred
professional expenditure. The Claims Tribunal erred in taking the gross
receipts as the income of the deceased. This Court is of the view that the
professional income of the deceased from the retainership fee of Rs.40,000/-
per month could not be more than Rs.10,000/- per month. Adding loss of
pension by Rs.6630/- (Rs.13050 - Rs.6420), the total income of the deceased
is taken as Rs.16,630/-. Deducting 50% towards personal expenses and
applying the multiplier of 7, the loss of dependency computed as
Rs.6,99,000/- (Rs.6,98,460/- rounded off). The compensation awarded by
the Claims Tribunal under the head of loss of love and affection, loss of
consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is upheld. The claimants are
entitled to compensation of Rs.9,34,000/- along with interest at the rate of
9% per annum from the date of institution.
10. The appeal is allowed and the compensation amount is reduced from
Rs.20,28,700/- to Rs.9,34,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of institution.
11. The appellant has deposited FDR for Rs.5,00,000/- with the Registrar
General of this Court in terms of order dated 06th October, 2016. The
Registrar General is directed to encash the FDR and release the FDR amount
along with interest thereon to respondent No.3 by transferring the same to
her savings bank account. The respondent No.3 has savings bank account
No.00000031777460612 with State Bank of India, Indirapuram Branch,
Ghaziabad. The Registrar General shall transfer the amount along with
interest to the aforesaid savings bank account of respondent No.3 within a
period of three weeks.
12. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant shall also be
transferred to respondent No.3 which shall also be adjusted in the award
amount.
13. The appellants have directed to deposit the balance award amount
with the Claims Tribunal within a period of four weeks. Upon deposit of the
balance amount the Claims Tribunal shall disburse the same to the
respondents in the following ratio:
(i) Respondent No.1 = 10%
(ii) Respondent No.2 = 10%
(iii) Respondent No.4 = 10%
(iv) Respondent No.5 = 10%
(v) Respondent No.3 = 60%
14. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsel for the parties under
the signature of the Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
FEBRUARY 19, 2020/ds
