Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 185 (DEL)

Gayatri Devi v. Tersam Singh

2010-02-03

J.R.MIDHA

body2010
JUDGMENT : J.R. Midha, J. The Appellants have challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 6,57,905 has been awarded to the Appellants. The Appellants seek enhancement of the award amount. 2. The accident dated 13.5.2005 resulted in the death of Mahender Kant Sharma. The deceased was survived by his widow, two minor daughters, one minor son and parents, who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. 3. The deceased was aged about 36 years at the time of the accident and was working with Omega Construction Equipment as service engineer at a salary of Rs. 11,000 per month. Learned Tribunal disregarded the salary of the deceased and took the minimum wages of Rs. 3,804.90, deducted 1/4th for the personal expenses of the deceased and applied the multiplier of 16 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs. 5,47,905. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000 towards loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 50,000 towards loss of love and affection. The learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 6,57,905 to the Appellants. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants has urged the following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal: (i) The income of the deceased be taken to be Rs. 11,000 per month. (ii) The future prospects of the deceased to be taken into consideration. (iii) The compensation be awarded for loss to estate. 5. Respondent No. 3 has filed cross-objections seeking reduction of the award amount on the following grounds: (i) The rate of interest be reduced from 9 per cent per annum to 7.5 per cent per annum. (ii) The loss of consortium be reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000. 6. The deceased was a qualified service engineer. The widow of the deceased came in the witness-box as PW 1 and produced High School Certificate and the Engineering Certificate of the deceased. PW 1 also proved the certificate of the employer as Exh. PW1/L in which it was certified that deceased was working as service engineer with Omega Construction Equipment at a monthly salary of Rs. 11,000. The Manager (Commercial) of Omega Construction Equipment appeared in the witness-box as PW 2 and deposed that the deceased was holding a Diploma in Engineering and was working with Omega Construction Equipment as Service Engineer and was drawing salary of Rs. 11,000 per month. 11,000. The Manager (Commercial) of Omega Construction Equipment appeared in the witness-box as PW 2 and deposed that the deceased was holding a Diploma in Engineering and was working with Omega Construction Equipment as Service Engineer and was drawing salary of Rs. 11,000 per month. PW 2 proved the attendance-cum-wages register for the months of April and May 2005 as Exh. PW2/A. Deceased had joined Omega Construction Equipment on 15.4.2005 and was paid salary of Rs. 4,213 for 16 days of April 2005. The deceased worked for 13 days in May 2005 and was paid a salary of Rs. 4,261. The occupation and income of the deceased was duly proved by PW 1, PW 2, Exh. PW1/L and Exh. PW2/A. However, the learned Tribunal disregarded the aforesaid evidence on the ground that the salary was shown as Rs, 8,500 per month but for the month of April, he was paid Rs. 4,216 only and no appointment letter was produced. The learned Tribunal took the minimum wages of Rs. 3,804.90 to compute the loss of dependency. The finding of learned Tribunal is not based on evidence on record. Considering that the deceased was a qualified service engineer and the documentary evidence of his occupation was duly proved, the finding of the learned Tribunal with respect to the income of the deceased is set aside. The income of the deceased is taken to be Rs. 11,000 per month. The deceased was at a permanent job and, therefore, 50 per cent of future prospects are to be taken into consideration, following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The income of the deceased for computation of compensation is taken to be Rs. 16,500 (Rs. 11,000 + 50 per cent) and 74th is deducted for personal expenses. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16. However, the appropriate multiplier at the age of 36 according to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) is 15. The multiplier is, therefore, reduced from 16 to 15. 7. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000 for loss of consortium which is on a higher side. Following the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) loss of consortium is reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. The multiplier is, therefore, reduced from 16 to 15. 7. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000 for loss of consortium which is on a higher side. Following the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) loss of consortium is reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000, loss of love and affection is reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 10,000 is awarded towards loss to the estate. Total compensation computed to be Rs. 22,67,500 [(Rs. 16,500 x 3/4 x 12 x 15) + Rs. 10,000 + Rs. 10,000 + Rs. 10,000 + Rs. 10,000]. 8. The appeal is allowed and the award amount is enhanced from Rs. 6,57,905 to Rs. 22,67,500. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. However following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal and Others Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corpn., (2008) ACJ 2041, the rate of interest is reduced to 7.5 per cent per annum.