Delhi High Court
Smt. Shakuntala & Ors vs Sh. Naresh Kumar & Ors. on 16 May, 2011
Author: Reva Khetrapal
Bench: Reva Khetrapal
UNREPORTED
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC. APP. No. 288/2011
SMT. SHAKUNTALA & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. O.P.Mannie, Advocate.
Versus
SH. NARESH KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani,
Advocate for Respondent No.3.
% Date of Decision : May 16, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
O R D E R (ORAL)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
1. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing at the admission stage.
2. By way of this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and award dated 26th November, 2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
3. The essential facts are that on 26th December, 2007 one Ram Dhari was travelling in a TSR No. HR-69-4436, which was hit by a MAC.APP.288/2011 Page 1 of 5 truck bearing No. HR-69B-4308 at GT Road near Yamuna Filling Station, Industrial Area More. Ram Dhari (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. On the allegation that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, a claim petition was filed by the widow and five children of the deceased claiming compensation for the untimely demise of the deceased in the aforesaid road accident. In the said claim petition, the age of the deceased was stated to be 39 years at the time of his accidental death.
4. The learned Claims Tribunal, after noting that two of the daughters of the deceased, namely, appellants No. 2 and 3 were married and the son of the deceased, namely, appellant No.4 was in a private job, held that only the three remaining family members were dependent upon the income of the deceased, and thus deducted one- third towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased from his income, which the Claims Tribunal had assessed to be in the sum of Rs.12,500/- per month after an addition of 50% towards future prospects to the actual salary of the deceased. Thus, the Claims MAC.APP.288/2011 Page 2 of 5 Tribunal arrived at a figure of Rs.8,333/- per month as the loss of dependency of the appellants, and after multiplying the said figure by 12 to arrive at the annual loss of dependency, applied the multiplier of 15 to arrive at the figure of Rs.15 lacs towards the compensation payable to the appellants on account of the dependency of the appellants on the deceased. After adding non-pecuniary damages, the Claims Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to receive a sum of Rs.15,85,000/- in all, including the amount of the interim award, with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till its realisation.
5. Although a number of grounds were raised in the Memorandum of Appeal, at the time of hearing of the appeal the sole ground sought to be pressed by Mr. O.P. Mannie, the learned counsel for the appellants is with regard to the deduction of 1/3 rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and maintenance. Mr. Mannie contended that with such a large family to support, the deceased could not have been spending more than 1/4th of his income upon his own upkeep.
MAC.APP.288/2011 Page 3 of 5
6. I am inclined to agree with the aforesaid contention of Mr. Mannie for the reason that though the deceased left behind him his widow and two unmarried daughters who were wholly dependent upon him, the deceased also left behind him two married daughters and a son, who though may not have been dependent on him stricto senso, nevertheless formed part of his family. The married daughters of the deceased have been awarded only a sum of Rs.10,000/- each while the son of the deceased has been awarded Rs.15,000/- only by the Claims Tribunal.
7. It is well known that in Indian society married daughters are also the beneficiaries of various gifts and cash amounts from the father from time to time. The appellant No.4, who was the son of the deceased, was also unmarried and in due course of time the father would have expended some amount of money on his marriage and would have supported him in times of need. Accordingly, in my view, the deduction of one-fourth of the income of the deceased ought to have been made by the Claims Tribunal while calculating the loss of dependency of the appellants. Thus calculated, the appellants must be MAC.APP.288/2011 Page 4 of 5 held entitled to receive a sum of Rs.12,500 X 3/4 X 12 X 15 which comes to Rs.16,87,500/-. Adding the sum of Rs.85,000/- towards the non-pecuniary damages awarded by the Tribunal, the total amount of compensation awardable to the appellants comes to Rs.17,72,500. The award amount is accordingly enhanced from Rs.15,85,000/- to Rs.17,72,500/-. Interest as awarded by the Tribunal shall also be payable on the enhanced amount of award by the respondent No.3 from the date of institution of the claim petition till the date of realisation of the award amount.
8. The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within a period of 30 days from today along with the interest thereon with the Registrar General of this Court. This amount shall be equally apportioned between the appellants No.1to 6.
9. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) May 16, 2011 'raj' MAC.APP.288/2011 Page 5 of 5