Delhi High Court
Smt.Kamlesh Devi & Ors. vs Sh.Kitab Singh & Ors. on 12 July, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
Bench: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 12.7.2011
+ MAC APPEAL No.152/2009
SMT.KAMLESH DEVI & ORS. ...........Appellants
Through: Mr.Manish Maini, Advocate.
Versus
SH.KITAB SINGH & ORS. ..........Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. The Award impugned is the Award dated 5.4.2008 vide which compensation in the sum of Rs.8,76,184/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum had been granted in favour of the claimants.
2. Prakash Chand aged 55 years had suffered death in a road MAC APPEAL No.152/2009 Page 1 of 3 accident which had taken place on 27.8.2005. The deceased was riding his bicycle; a truck coming from Wazirabad hit him in a rash and negligent manner; deceased died at the spot.
3. The present petition has been filed by the claimants seeking an enhancement of compensation. The controversy is narrow. It has been urged that the victim was 55 years of age and he having six dependants, deduction should have been made of 1/4th and not of 1/3rd. The salary certificate of the deceased had been proved as Ex.PW-2/A. Deceased was working as a lascer in the Air Force Station. After giving him the benefit of future prospects his loss of income had been computed to Rs.13065/-; multiplier of 11 was applied; split multiplier was applied keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had to retire at the age of 60; under the first category the actual salary i.e. between the age of 55 to 60 had been taken into account and in the second category since at the age of 60 years the deceased would have retired; his pension was considered; under this circumstance the split multiplier had been applied. This was a reasoned reasoning and calls for no interference. In the the judgment of K.R. Madhusushan & Ors. Vs. The Administrative Officer & Anr. 2011(2) Scale 511, the split multiplier introduced by the High Court had been set aside by the Apex Court as the High Court had applied the method of the split MAC APPEAL No.152/2009 Page 2 of 3 multiplier without disclosing any reason; the Tribunal (as noted supra) had given a reasoned finding for adopting the split multiplier. This finding does not call for any interference.
4. Record shows that the deceased had four children who were already married and three minor dependants; his widow was getting a family pension. The deduction of 1/3rd made on this count in view of the judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (2009) 67 SCC 121 also suffers from no infirmity; the impugned Award calls for no interference. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 12, 2011 nandan MAC APPEAL No.152/2009 Page 3 of 3