Delhi High Court
Rajinder Singh & Anr vs Balvinder Singh & Ors on 16 November, 2022
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004919
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 01.11.2022
Pronounced on: 16.11.2022
+ MAC.APP. 1067/2013
RAJINDER SINGH & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Yash Pal Laroya,
Advocate.
versus
BALVINDER SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate
for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
JUDGMENT
GAURANG KANTH, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award
dated 29.07.2013 ("impugned award") passed by the Court of
learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(South-1), Saket Courts, New Delhi.
2. By way of impugned award dated 29.07.2013 the learned
Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 29,99,038/-
(inclusive of interim award, if any) with interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till
realization of the amount and directed the Insurance Company
to pay the entire awarded amount within a period of one month.
SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT
3. Mr. Y. P. Laroya, learned counsel for the appellant while
seeking enhancement of the compensation contended that the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
19:22:47
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004919
learned Claims Tribunal has passed the impugned award
without appreciating the principles of law, documents and the
evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellant further
contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in calculating
the monthly income of the deceased/victim as Rs. 35,000/- per
month, however, taking into account the deposits made by the
deceased/victim, the income of the deceased should be
calculated a1 Rs. 40,000/- per month. Learned counsel further
contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in granting
compensation under the head „Medical Expenses‟ to the tune of
Rs. 45,874/- as the medical bills which have been produced
before the learned Claims Tribunal were for an amount of
Rs.1,18,818/-. Learned counsel further contended that in terms
of dicta of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors reported as (2017)
17 SCC 680, compensation under the head „Future Prospects‟
is to be paid by adding 40% of the assessed income of the
deceased/victim instead of 10%, as awarded by the learned
Claims Tribunal. Learned counsel further contended that
multiplier should be adopted in terms of dicta laid down in case
of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs DTC & Anr. reported in (2009) 6
SCC 121 which is upheld in the judgment of Pranay Sethi
(Supra) whereby it was held that for the purposes of selection
of multiplier, the age of the deceased has to be taken into
account. He further contended that the deceased/victim was 26
years of age at the time of the incident and 27 years at the time
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
19:22:47
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004919
of the death and the learned Claims Tribunal erred in
calculating the compensation under the head „Loss of Future
Income‟ by taking the multiplier of 11 instead of 17. Learned
counsel while placing reliance on Pranay Sethi (supra)
contended that compensation under the head „Loss of
Consortium‟ „Loss of Estate‟ and „Loss of Funeral Expenses‟
needs to be modified/enhanced. Learned counsel for the
appellant further sought compensation under the head
„Conveyance‟ as the deceased/victim has taken treatment in
different hospitals and was shifted from one hospital to another.
Learned counsel concluded his arguments seeking
compensation under the head „Pain and Mental Agony‟
suffered by the family members of the deceased/victim.
4. Mr. Pradeep Gaur, learned counsel for Respondent no. 3
contended that the appeal is liable to be dismissed and no
interference in the impugned award is called for by this Court.
Learned counsel further contended that the learned Claims
Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the
deceased/victim and no modification in the monthly income
assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal is required. Learned
counsel further contended that the compensation under the head
„Medical Expenses‟ have already been paid to the claimants
and as such no modification/enhancement is called for by this
Court. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 further sought
grant of recovery rights to the Insurance company. Learned
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
19:22:47
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004919
counsel fairly concedes for grant of compensation under the
head „Loss of Consortium‟ „Loss of Estate‟ and „Loss of
Funeral Expenses‟ in the terms of Pranay Sethi (supra).
COURT'S REASONING
5. Brief facts of the case as noted by learned Claims Tribunal are
as under:-
"...on 15.07.2008 at about 11.30 to 11:45 pm, the victim
riding on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-6SV-
4200 alongwith Sh. Chan Preet Singh as a pillion rider
were going towards Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and when
they reached Safdarjung flyover, at that point of time, a
truck bearing registration no. HR-38K-0751 being driven
by its driver namely Balvinder Singh in a rash and
negligent manner came from behind and hit into
motorcycle, as a result of which occupants of motorcycle
fell down and victim namely Nitin Verma sustained
grievous injuries....."
6. Mr. Nitin Verma, the victim succumbed to injuries on
26.09.2009, 14 months after the unfortunate accident.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed for calculation of
monthly income of the deceased/victim at Rs. 40,000/- per
month instead of Rs. 35,000/-. In this context, it is necessary to
recapitulate the findings of the learned Claims Tribunal, which
reads as under:-
"The aforesaid TDS certificates shows that during the
period from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007, the deceased
received Rs. 4,17,000/-. For the same period, the total
deposit in the bank account comes to Rs.3,28,170/- and
some these entries bears the name of Glint Entertainment.
In these circumstances, the monthly income of deceased
can be construed to be Rs. 35,000/- per month. It is not
out of place to mention that bank deposit total for the next
financial year 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 is closed to Rs.
5,00,000/-. This further gives strength to the assumption
that after reducing professional expenses, the monthly
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
19:22:47
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004919
income of deceased can be taken to Rs. 35,000/- equal to
Rs. 4,20,000/- per annum. For the purpose of calculating
compensation 10% of enhancement as a future prospects
is taken in this case keeping in view progression in
economic market, therefore, and after adding 10% it
would come to be Rs. 4,62,000/- (Rs. 4,20,000/-+10%)"
8. Perusal of the record depicts that the deceased/victim was an
Animation and Graphic Designer. The deceased/victim was
working in I-Stylus company on contractual basis as graphic
designer. The avocation and salary statement has been proved
on record by PW-4/Mr. Rajender Singh, father of the
deceased/victim and PW-6/Chan Preet (Graphic designer). The
learned Claims Tribunal has carefully gone through the
document produced in support of the income of the
deceased/victim and assessed the income at Rs. 35,000/- per
month. This Court does not find infirmity in the finding with
regard the assessment of monthly income of the
deceased/victim and as such the argument raised by learned
counsel for the appellant for enhancement of monthly income
from Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- holds no ground.
9. As far as argument with regard to grant of enhanced
compensation for medical expenses is concerned, the perusal of
the record depicts that the claimants have filed medical bills to
the tune of Rs. 8,80,038/- and the learned Claims Tribunal has
granted all the amounts without any deduction hence the prayer
for enhancement of medical expenses holds no ground.
10. The claimants have sought compensation under the head
„Conveyance‟ and also „Pain and Mental Agony' suffered by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
19:22:47
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004919
the claimants. In this regard, it is relevant to peruse the
testimony of the relevant witnesses produced before the learned
Claims Tribunal. As per PW-8/Mr. Pyara Singh, Medical
Record Officer, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, the deceased/victim
during his treatment was admitted in their hospital from
08.09.2008 to 18.07.2009 and thereafter he was transferred to
AIIMS. PW-9/Dr. Anurag Srivastav, Professor of Surgery,
AIIMS deposed that the deceased/victim was referred to
AIIMS from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. The deceased/victim
was operated upon to take care of his wounds on both lower
limbs by a flap surgery. He further deposed that the wound
created by the skin graft harvesting did not heal and more skin
grafts were under taken. He further deposed that thereafter the
deceased/victim was admitted in the Surgical Department on
17.07.2009 and was discharged on 17.09.2009. He further
deposed that since the wounds were not healing, a special
plastic surgery was conducted at Jai Prakash Narayan Apex
Trauma Centre, AIIMS on 17.09.2009 because of which he
developed septicemia and died on 26.09.2009. PW-
10/Mr.Maneesh Singhal, Plastic Surgeon, Jai Prakash Narayan
Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS confirms the admission and
surgery of the deceased in the Trauma Centre and deposed that
the deceased was admitted in the their hospital and expired on
26.09.2009 due to his wounds.
11. It has been unequivocally proved on record that the
deceased/victim was initially taken to Safadarjung Hospital
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
19:22:47
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004919
thereafter to B.L.K. Medical Centre and then the
deceased/victim was taken to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital where
he remained for treatment for more than 1½ years. The
deceased/victim was thereafter referred to AIIMS for treatment.
From AIIMS, the deceased/victim was further referred for
surgery to Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS
and ultimately succumbed to injuries on 26.09.2009.
12. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is a beneficial
legislation, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court time and again has
reiterated that the Act stipulates that there should be grant of
"Just Compensation". Thus, it becomes a challenge for the
court of law to determine "Just Compensation" which is neither
a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a
pittance. The Courts should pragmatically compute the loss
sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic
approximation.
13. In view of the above discussion, despite being a death case,
having regard to peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
case, there is no impediment in granting compensation under
the head „Conveyance‟ to the claimants. Accordingly, this
Court grants compensation of Rs. 25,000/- under the head
„Conveyance‟.
14. Learned counsel for the Respondent/Insurance Company
contended for grant of recovery rights. In this regard, this Court
finds that in paragraph 30 of the impugned judgment, the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
19:22:47
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004919
learned Claims Tribunal has already granted recovery rights to
the Respondent/ Insurance Company as such there is no
requirement for passing a separate direction qua recovery
rights.
15. The other argument raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant is purely legal and based on the law settled by the
Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). In
terms of Pranay Sethi (Supra) an addition of 40% of the
established income of the deceased/victim has to be granted
under the head „Future Prospects' as the deceased/victim was
of the age of 26 years at the time of the alleged incident and 27
years at the time of death. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case
of Pranay Sethi (Supra), with regard to grant of compensation
under the head „Future Prospects', has held as under:-
"....The degree-test has to have the inbuilt concept of
percentage. Taking into consideration the cumulative
factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society,
escalation of price, the change in price index, the human
attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an
addition of 40% of the established income of the
deceased towards future prospects and where the
deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where
the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years
would be reasonable.
60. The controversy does not end here. The question still
remains whether there should be no addition where the
age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Sarla Verma
thinks it appropriate not to add any amount and the same
has been approved in Reshma Kumari. Judicial notice can
be taken of the fact that salary does not remain the same.
When a person is in a permanent job, there is always an
enhancement due to one reason or the other. To lay down
as a thumb Rule that there will be no addition after 50
years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to
think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
19:22:47
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004919
is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be
no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self-employed
or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10%
between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick
has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the
approach by the tribunals and the courts."
(emphasis supplied)
16. In the case of Joginder Singh and Ors.
Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company reported in
2012 SCC Online Mad 3922 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while
dealing with issue of multiplier in an accident case, has held
that:-
"The issue with respect to whether the Multiplier to be
applied in the case of a bachelor, should be computed on
the basis of the age of the deceased, or the age of the
parents, is no longer res integra. This issue has been
recently settled by a three Judge bench of this Court
in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud and Ors. , (2019) 5 SCC
554 wherein it has been held that the Multiplier has to be
applied on the basis on the age of the deceased. The Court
held that:
10. A reading of the judgment in Sube Singh
(supra) shows that where a three Judge Bench
has categorically taken the view that it is the
age of the deceased and not the age of the
parents that would be the factor for the
purposes of taking the multiplier to be applied.
This judgment undoubtedly relied upon the case
of Munna Lal Jain (supra) which is also a three
Judge Bench judgment in this behalf. The
relevant portion of the judgment has also been
extracted. Once again the extracted portion in
turn refers to the judgment of a three Judge
Bench in Reshma Kumari and Ors. v. Madan
Mohan and Anr. : (2013) 9 SCC 65. The
relevant portion of Reshma Kumari in turn has
referred to Sarla Verma (supra) case and given
its imprimatur to the same. The loss of
dependency is thus stated to be based on: (i)
additions/deductions to be made for arriving at
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
19:22:47
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004919
the income; (ii) the deductions to be made
towards the personal living expenses of the
deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied
with reference to the age of the deceased. It is
the third aspect which is of significance and
Reshma Kumari categorically states that it does
not want to revisit the law settled in Sarla
Verma case in this behalf.
11. Not only this, the subsequent judgment of
the Constitution bench in Pranay Sethi (supra)
has also been referred to in Sube Singh for the
purpose of calculation of the multiplier.
12. We are convinced that there is no need to
once again take up this issue settled by the
aforesaid judgments of three Judge Bench and
also relying upon the Constitution Bench that it
is the age of the deceased which has to be taken
into account and not the age of the dependents."
(emphasis supplied)
17. Further, in terms of dicta laid down in case of Sarla Verma
(Supra) which is upheld in the judgment of Pranay Sethi
(Supra) whereby it was held that for the purposes of selection
of multiplier the age of the deceased has to be taken into
account. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla
Verma (Supra) while determining the multiplier in an accident
case has held that:-
"21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used
should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above
(prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra
and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of
18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years),
reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for
26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to
40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50
years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that
is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7
for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
19:22:47
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004919
18. Multiplier to be used as per dicta of Sarla Verma (Supra) is as
under:-
Colu Upto 15 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 Abo
mn 15 to to to to to to to to to to ve
yrs 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 65
yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs
(4) 15 18 18 17 16 15 14 13 11 9 7 5
19. Since in the present case, the deceased/victim was of the age of
26 years at the time of accident and of 27 years at the time of
death, multiplier of 17 is to be taken while computing the
compensation under the head „Loss of Future Income‟.
20. Further in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court for the conventional heads, namely, „Loss of
Estate‟, Loss of Consortium‟ and „Funeral Expenses‟ has fixed
the amount of compensation at Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and
Rs. 15,000/-, respectively with an increase of 10% after a
period of 3 years.
21. With regard to deduction to be made towards „Personal and
Living Expenses‟, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi
(Supra) upholds the deduction ascertained in the case of Sarla
Verma (Supra). As per the Judgment passed by the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) deductions
are to be calculated as under:-
"14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made
towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the
basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general
practice is to apply standardized deductions.
Having considered several subsequent decisions of this
Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
19:22:47
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004919
married, the deduction towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd)
where the number of dependent family members is 2 to
3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant
family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the
number of dependant family members exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants
are the parents, the deduction follows a different
principle.
In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as
personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a
bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even
otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting
married in a short time, in which event the contribution to
the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically.
Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is
likely to have his own income and will not be considered
as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered
as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary,
brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents,
because they will either be independent and earning, or
married, or be dependant on the father.
Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and
siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a
dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal
and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the
contribution to the family. However, where family of the
bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the
deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother
and large number of younger non-earning sisters or
brothers, his personal and living expenses may be
restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will
be taken as two-third."
22. It is borne out from the records that the deceased/victim was a
bachelor and accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid judgments,
deduction towards personal and living expenses of the
deceased/victim, should be one half (1/2).
23. In view of the above discussion the impugned Award dated
29.07.2013 is modified as under:-
(a) „Loss of dependency‟ is calculated as
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
19:22:47
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004919
1. Rs. 35,000/- + 40% (Rs. 14,000/-) = Rs. 49,000/-
2. Rs. 49,000/- less 1/2 deduction (Rs. 24,500/-) =
Rs. 24,500/-
3. Rs. 24,500 X 12 X 17 = Rs. 49,98,000/-
(b) „Loss of Consortium‟ is computed as Rs. 44,000 X 2 =
Rs. 88,000/- to be paid to the claimants.
(c) „Loss of Estate‟ is quantified as Rs. 16,500/- to be paid
to the claimants.
(d) „Funeral Expenses is quantified as Rs. 16,500/- to be
paid to the claimants.
(e) Compensation under the head „Love and Affection.‟ =
Nil.
(f) Compensation under the head „Medical Expenses‟ =
Rs. 8,80,038/- to be paid to the claimants.
(g) Compensation under the head „Conveyance‟ =
Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the claimants.
(h) Total compensation to be paid to claimants is;
Rs.49,98,000/- + Rs. 88,000 + Rs. 16,500/- +
Rs.16,500/- + Rs. 8,80,038/- + Rs. 25,000/- =
Rs.60,24,038/-.
24. Accordingly, the compensation granted by the learned Claims
Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 29,99,038/- to Rs. 60,24,038/-
(inclusive of interim award, if any).
25. It is pertinent to mention that the Appellant/Mr. Rajender Singh
had expired during the pendency of this appeal and his name
has been deleted from the array of parties vide order dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
19:22:47
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004919
06.09.2021 and appellant no. 2/sister of the deceased is the only
remaining appellant/claimant in this case. As per her affidavit
dated 19.03.2020 filed alongwith CM No. 6033/2021, she is
aged 34 years and residing with her husband at Ahmedabad,
Gujarat.
26. The Respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
entire compensation amount with the Registrar General of this
Court within a period of 4 weeks. If any amount is deposited
with the learned Claims Tribunal, the same shall be reduced
from the total amount mentioned above and the differential
amount be deposited by the Respondent/Insurance Company
with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of 4
weeks. On deposit of the entire amount as mentioned above,
the same shall be released to the claimant within a period of
two weeks. Statutory amount, if deposited, be released to the
appellant.
27. There would be no change in the rate of interest awarded by the
learned Claims Tribunal.
28. Appeals stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
GAURANG KANTH, J.
NOVEMBER 16, 2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
19:22:47
