Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 374 (DEL)

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SUMITA

2010-03-03

J.R.MIDHA

body2010
JUDGMENT : J.R. Midha, J. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 12,55,000 has been awarded to claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The appellant is seeking reduction of the award amount. Claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of the award amount. 2. The accident dated 2.10.2005 resulted in the death of Pawan Kumar Yadav. The deceased was aged 23 years at the time of the accident and was carrying on the business of transporter in the name of Yadav Tempo Service. The deceased left behind four legal representatives, namely, widow, minor son and parents, who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. 3. The father of the deceased appeared in the witness-box as PW 1 and deposed that the deceased was a transporter by profession and was running transport business in the name of Yadav Tempo Service earning Rs.12,000 to Rs. 14,000 per month. The copy of the passbook of the deceased with State Bank of India was proved as Exh. PW1/1 according to which, the total deposits between 28.8.2004 and 20.5.2005 were Rs. 76,000. There were eight withdrawals of Rs. 7,635 at regular intervals. According to PW 1, Rs. 7,635 was being paid as EMI to the bank by the deceased towards the vehicle owned by him. On the basis of the said withdrawals, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs. 6,000 per month considering that the taxable limit in 2005-06 was Rs. 1,00,000. The learned Tribunal added 50 per cent towards the future prospects, deducted 73rd towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 17 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs. 12,25,000. Rs. 10,000 has been awarded for loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000 for loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000 towards funeral expenses. The total compensation awarded is Rs. 12,55,000. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged the following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal: (i) The income of the deceased be taken according to the minimum wages. (ii) The future prospects should not be taken into consideration for computation of compensation. 5. The learned counsel for claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have urged the following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal: (i) The income of the deceased be taken to be Rs. 1,00,000 per annum. (ii) The future prospects should not be taken into consideration for computation of compensation. 5. The learned counsel for claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have urged the following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal: (i) The income of the deceased be taken to be Rs. 1,00,000 per annum. (ii) Personal expenses of the deceased be reduced from 1/3rd to 1/4 th. (iii) The multiplier be enhanced from 17 to 18. (iv) Compensation be awarded for loss to estate. 6. With respect to the income of the deceased, the claimants have proved that the deceased was paying EMI of Rs. 7,635 to the bank towards the loan taken for the vehicle and, therefore, the income of the deceased has to be more than that. The claimants have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 12,000 to Rs. 14,000 per month. However, since the deceased was not paying any income tax, the income of the deceased ought to have been taken at Rs. 1,00,000 per annum which was the upper taxable limit at that time. The in-come of the deceased is, therefore, taken to be Rs. 1,00,000 per annum. The learned Tribunal has added 50 per cent towards future prospects. The present case does not warrant the future prospects to be taken into consideration in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, AIR 2009 SC 3104 . The learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses. However, the appropriate deduction in the present case is 1/4th as the deceased has left behind four legal representatives. The personal expenses of the deceased are, therefore, reduced from 1/3rd to 1/4th. Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 17 whereas the appropriate multiplier at the age of 23 years is 18. The multiplier is, therefore, enhanced from 17 to 18. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards the loss to estate. Rs. 10,000 is awarded towards loss to estate. 7. Taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 1,00,000 per annum, deducting 1/4 th for personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of dependency is computed to be Rs. 13,50,000 (Rs. 1,00,000 x 3/4 x 18). Adding Rs. 10,000 towards loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000 towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 10,000 towards loss to estate and Rs. 1,00,000 per annum, deducting 1/4 th for personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of dependency is computed to be Rs. 13,50,000 (Rs. 1,00,000 x 3/4 x 18). Adding Rs. 10,000 towards loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000 towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 10,000 towards loss to estate and Rs. 10,000 towards funeral expenses, the total compensation is computed to be Rs. 13,90,000 (Rs. 13,50,000 + Rs. 10,000 + Rs. 10,000 + Rs. 10,000 + Rs. 10,000). 8. The appeal is dismissed. The cross-objections are allowed and compensation amount is enhanced from Rs. 12,55,000 to Rs. 13,90,000 along with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of notice of deposit under Order 21, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. The enhanced award amount along with interest be deposited by the appellant with UCO Bank A/c Sumita, Delhi High Court Branch through M.M. Tandon, Member, Retail Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi (Mobile No. 09310356400) within 30 days. 10. Upon the aforesaid deposit being made, UCO Bank is directed to keep a sum of Rs. 50,000 in fixed deposit in the name of Chirag till he attains majority on which monthly interest be paid to respondent No. 1. 11. The remaining enhanced amount be released to respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in equal shares by transferring the same to their respective savings bank accounts. 12. The name of respondent No. 1 in para 2' of the order dated 30.11.2009 is corrected and be read as 'Sumita' instead of 'Sunita'. 13. Since the appeal has been disposed of, the FDR in terms of the order dated 30.11.2009 shall be handed over to the claimants-respondents on the maturity.