Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
MAC.APP.No. 632-37/2006
Page 1 of 7
$~R-16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 632-37/2006
Date of decision:01.12.2014
SAFINA BEGUM& ORS.
..... Appellants Through Mr.Mohit Kukreja, Advocate
Versus
MOHD. YUSUF AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through Mr.Garud M.V., Advocate for R-3
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)
The present appeal arises out of an award dated 20.04.2006. By the present appeal the appellants/claimants seek enhancement of compensation. 2. The issue centres around an accident dated 16.05.1994 which resulted in the death of Sh. Abdul Aziz. The deceased was travelling in a bus. At T-point of Mathura Road and Bhairon Road, the bus which was said to be driven rashly and negligently by its driver jumped the red light and thereafter it hit a car. The driver lost control of the bus and hit against the pavement and turned over. Three of the occupants of the bus received injuries. Abdul Aziz received fatal injuries. 3. On the evidence of the parties a total compensation of Rs. 1,38,800 was awarded. Loss of dependency was assessed at Rs.1,18,800/-. Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- for loss of love and affection were awarded. 4. A perusal of the award shows that the Tribunal has assessed the income
MAC.APP.No. 632-37/2006
Page 2 of 7
of the deceased based on minimum wages which at the relevant time were Rs.1,382/-. 1/3rd was deducted for personal expenses. Future prospects have not been granted. A multiplier of 11 was used based on the age of the mother and total compensation for loss of dependency at Rs.1,18,800/- was awarded. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal after having assessed the income at Rs.1,382/- per month (say Rs.1400/-) should have increased the income by 50% for future prospects as the deceased on the date of the death was only 26 years old. He further submits that the multiplier has been wrongly used as the deceased was a bachelor and the multiplier had to be used based on the age of the deceased and not on the age of the mother. The multiplier of 11 has been used whereas the multiplier of 17 was to be used. It is next urged that there were six dependents including all the family members and loss of love and affection of only Rs. 15,000/- has been awarded. It is also urged that no loss of estate was awarded. It is lastly urged that the rate of interest for the period of pendency of the petition has been given @ 6% per annum which is on the lower side and the same should be 9% p.a. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kala Devi vs.Bhagwan Dass Chauhan 2004 (12) SCALE 513 to contend that the Supreme Court has held that no future prospects are to be awarded. 7. A perusal of the said judgment shows that it pertains to a deceased who was 25 years old, matriculate and driver by vocation. In that case the Tribunal despite the contention of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month at the time of his death took Rs. 3,000/- per month for quantification
MAC.APP.No. 632-37/2006
Page 3 of 7
of loss of dependency. The High Court in the appeal added 40% on account of future increase of income and hence arrived at the income of Rs.4,200/-. The Supreme Court noted that a driver in Himachal Pradesh would be earning an average of Rs. 9,000/- per month as per the Minimum Wages Act and noted that a driver is a skilled job. The Supreme Court hence, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 9000/- per month and after deducting 20% for income tax fixed the net income. 8. The said judgment does not in any manner say that future prospects of 40% has been wrongly added by the High Court as increase in the income while computing loss of dependency. On the contrary, it almost doubled the assessed income by the High Court at Rs.4200/- per month to Rs.9000/- per month for purposes of computation of loss of dependency. 9. As far as future prospects are concerned, I can take judicial note of the fact that minimum wages for a skilled worker in 2002 were Rs.3,103.7 P.M. and in 2012 were Rs.8,528/- P.M. It is obvious that the prescribed minimum wages have more than doubled in ten years. 10. In case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54the Supreme Court held that in the case of self employed or those on fixed wages, when the victim is below 40 years an addition of 50% should be made in the wages for the purpose of computing loss of future earnings. 11. In the case of Smt.Savita vs. Bindar Singh & Ors., (2014) 4 SCC 505, the Supreme Court was of the view that in the case of self employed or those engaged on fixed wages, 30% increase in income over period of time would be appropriate. In the case of V.Mekala vs. M.Malathi & Anr., 2014 ACJ 1441, the Supreme Court in the case of injury to a student who was studying in Class
MAC.APP.No. 632-37/2006
Page 4 of 7
XI aged 16 years had awarded 50% increase for future prospects. 12. Further, this court in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company vs. Angrej Singh & Ors. in MAC APP. 846/2011 in judgment dated 30.09.2013 had gone into this issue and had noted the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan & Anr.(2013) 9 SCC 65 and other judgments and concluded that the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors.(supra) has held that the future prospects should be given to persons who are self- employed or on fixed wages. This court further held that there is no conflict in the legal position as set out in the judgments of Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan & Anr(supra) and Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. (supra). 13. I may further note that this court in MAC APP.761/2012 Rakesh and Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. vide judgment dated 02.04.2014 had in a case where the deceased was 24 years old added 50% to the income towards future prospects for computing loss of dependency based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors.(supra). Against the said judgment the appellant had filed an SLP before the Supreme Court. The said SLP No.5612/2014 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10.10.2014. 14. Hence the award is modified. The income of the deceased which was assessed at Rs.1,382/- per month is increased by 50% for future prospects. 15. As far as multiplier is concerned, this Court in the case of Mohd. Hasnain & Ors. vs. Jagram Meena & Ors. MANU/DE/0715/2014; 2014 (142)
MAC.APP.No. 632-37/2006
Page 5 of 7
DRJ 303 held that the multiplier has to be based on the age of the deceased. That was a case where the age of the deceased was 39 years. 16. This Court in the said case of Mohd. Hasnain & Ors. vs. Jagram Meena & Ors. (supra) relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in case of M. Mansoor vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., MANU/SC/1042 which judgment further relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. MANU/SC/0537/2012 held as follows:- “15. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependants. There may be a number of dependants of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of the dependants has no nexus with the computation of compensation.”
M. Mansoor vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd (supra) was a case where the deceased was a bachelor of 24 years of age and the Supreme Court held that the selection of the multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not the age of the dependants. Further, in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (supra) the deceased was a bachelor aged 26 years and the Court applied the multiplier of 17. In view of the said judgment passed by this Court, following the judgments of the Supreme Court, the Tribunal erred in not taking the age of the deceased to consider the appropriate multiplier. 18. Hence, the appropriate multiplier to be used would be 17 given the deceased was 26 years of age on the date of the accident. 19. In the case of Rakesh and Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.(supra) where the deceased was 24 years the Tribunal had taken the
MAC.APP.No. 632-37/2006
Page 6 of 7
multiplier of 13 considering the age of the mother of the deceased as he was a bachelor. This court relying upon the judgment in the case of Mohd. Hasnain & Ors. vs. Jagram Meena & Ors. (supra) applied a multiplier of 18 based on the age of the deceased. Against the said judgment the appellant had filed an SLP before the Supreme Court. The said SLP No.5612/2014 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10.10.2014. 20. In view of the above legal position, the multiplier of 17 would be used in the present case. 21. I may deal with another issue here. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd on account of personal expenditure. The Tribunal does not explain why 1/3rd deduction has been made for personal expenses. The Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (supra) has said that in the case of a bachelor, deduction of 50% should be made for personal and living expenses. In the present case the brothers and sisters of the deceased have been added as parties and the appellants No 2 to 6 before this Court. There is nothing on record to show that they were wholly dependent upon the deceased or to even show their age or anything else. PW-1 Safina Begum in her evidence says that the deceased was the only bread earner but gives no details of how much the other family members are earning. She states that she has four sons and one daughter and that the daughter is 28 years old and all are of marriageable age. What is the age of the other sons? Whether they are working. No details are provided. 22. In the light of the above, in my opinion 50% of the assessed income has to be deducted for personal expenses. 23. On the issue of compensation awarded under the head of loss of love and
MAC.APP.No. 632-37/2006
Page 7 of 7
affection, in my opinion, there are no reasons to change the award. On the loss of estate, I award Rs.15,000/- for the loss of estate. 24. On the issue of interest, in my opinion, there are no reasons to change the interest rate awarded by the Tribunal. The same being the discretion of the Tribunal, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 25. After above modification, the total compensation for loss of dependency would now be Rs.2,11,548/-[(1382+50%- ½ ) x 12 x17]. Total compensation would now be as follows:- Loss of dependency Rs.2,11,548/- Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 15,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.2,46,548/-
The Insurance Company/respondent No.3 may deposit additional compensation amount with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit before the Registrar General of this Court. On receipt of the said amount, the Registrar General may release the same in favour of the claimants proportionately as per the directions in the award.
JAYANT NATH, J DECEMBER 01, 2014 rb