Delhi High Court
Kesar Ali & Anr vs Santosh Kumar & Ors (National ... on 11 September, 2023
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 11.09.2023
+ MAC.APP. 246/2018
KESAR ALI & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.S.N. Parashar, Adv.
versus
SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS (NATIONAL INSURANCE CO
LTD) ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated
20.09.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Impugned Award') passed
by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (South East-01),
Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in
Suit No.4436/2016, titled Kesar Ali & Anr. v. Santosh Kumar &
Ors..
2. The limited challenge of the appellants, who were the claimants
before the learned Tribunal, is on the multiplier of 13 being applied by
the learned Tribunal for determining the loss of dependency; and on
future prospects in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC
680, having not been granted by the learned Tribunal.
Signature Not Verified
3. The learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that the
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:14.09.2023
11:37:20
learned Tribunal has rightly considered the age of the mother of the
deceased, that is, the appellant no.2 herein, for determining the
multiplier to be applied. He, however, does not dispute that Future
Prospects, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pranay
Sethi (supra), should have been awarded in favour of the appellants.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties.
5. In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Supreme Court has inter-alia held
as under:
"59.7. The age of the deceased should be the
basis for applying the multiplier."
6. In view of the above, the learned Tribunal has erred in applying
the multiplier based on the age of the mother of the deceased rather
than on the age of the deceased. The Impugned Award, to this extent,
cannot be sustained.
7. In the present case, the deceased was aged about 24 years at the
time of the accident. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Sarla Verma (SMT) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and
Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, as approved by the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the multiplier to be adopted would be
18. It is ordered accordingly. The Impugned Award shall stand
modified to this extent.
8. As far as the future prospects are concerned, in Pranay Sethi
(supra), the Supreme Court has held as under:
"59.3. While determining the income, an
addition of 50% of actual salary to the income
of the deceased towards future prospects,
where the deceased had a permanent job and
Signature Not Verified
was below the age of 40 years, should be
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
made. The addition should be 30%, if the age
Signing Date:14.09.2023
11:37:20
of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In
case the deceased was between the age of 50
to 60 years, the addition should be 15%.
Actual salary should be read as actual salary
less tax.
59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed
or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the
established income should be the warrant
where the deceased was below the age of 40
years. An addition of 25% where the deceased
was between the age of 40 to 50 years and
10% where the deceased was between the age
of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the
necessary method of computation. The
established income means the income minus
the tax component."
9. As the deceased was licensed as a conductor and was aged
about 24 years, 40% of his income should have been added towards
future prospects. It is ordered accordingly.
10. In view of the above, the compensation payable by the
respondent no.3 to the appellants on account of Loss of Dependency is
re-determined and is enhanced, as under:
S.No. Heads Amounts
1. Loss of Dependency = Rs.16,62,897.60
(10,998 x 140/100) x 12 x 18
x 1/2
2. Loss of Dependency Awarded (Rs.8,57,844.00)
by the learned Tribunal
Total Enhanced Amount (1-2) Rs.8,05,053.60
11. The respondent no.3 shall deposit the compensation amount, if
not already deposited, with the learned Tribunal as re-determined by
this order, alongwith interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal by its
Signature Not Verified
Impugned Award, within a period of six weeks from today.
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:14.09.2023
11:37:20
12. The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the
claimants/appellants in terms of the scheme of disbursal stipulated in
the Impugned Award.
13. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. There shall be no
orders as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SEPTEMBER 11, 2023/Arya/ss
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:14.09.2023
11:37:20
