Delhi High Court
Urmila Devi & Ors. vs Jeet Singh & Ors. on 18 April, 2011
Author: Reva Khetrapal
Bench: Reva Khetrapal
REPORTED
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 56/1990 and CM Nos.5057/2006 and 16296/2008
URMILA DEVI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate
versus
JEET SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for
the respondent No.4
% Date of Decision : April 18, 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?
ORDER (Oral)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
1. The appellants seek enhancement of the compensation awarded to them by the Claims Tribunal by its award dated 14.09.1989. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are that the deceased FAO 56/1990 Page 1 of 5 Dev Karan was sitting on the pillion seat of a motor cycle bearing No.HRP 3706, which was hit by a truck being driven rashly and negligently, as a result of which Dev Karan sustained fatal injuries. He was survived by his widow, three children and parents, who instituted a claim petition claiming compensation for his untimely death from the respondents No.1 to 4 - the respondent No.1 being the driver of the alleged offending truck, the respondents No.2 and 3 being the owners thereof and the respondent No.4 being the insurance company with which the said truck was insured.
2. The learned Claims Tribunal, while deciding the issue pertaining to the amount of compensation to which the appellants were entitled held that, on the evidence adduced by the appellants it stood proved on record that the total emoluments of the deceased, who was an employee of DESU, were about ` 720/- per month. After making an allowance for the amount that the deceased would have spent upon himself and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Lachman Singh vs. Gurmit Kaur 1979 ACJ 170 (Punjab and Haryana), the dependency of the appellants FAO 56/1990 Page 2 of 5 was assessed at the rate of ` 600/- per month. Further, in view of the fact that the deceased Shri Dev Karan was about 33 years of age, the multiplier of 16 was applied by the Claims Tribunal and the total compensation assessed to be in the sum of ` 1,15,200/-, i.e., ` 600/- x 12 x 16. The appellants were accordingly held entitled to the aforesaid amount with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till its realization.
3. Mr. Navneet Goyal, the learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement of this amount principally on two grounds. His first contention is that the learned Tribunal failed to take into account the future prospects of increase in the income of the deceased Dev Karan, who died at a comparatively young age and would have certainly progressed in life. His second contention is that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount whatsoever towards the various heads of non-pecuniary compensation and that the appellants are accordingly entitled to the grant thereof.
4. Mr. Pankaj Seth, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 - Insurance Company, though sought to support the award was not able FAO 56/1990 Page 3 of 5 to show any flaw in the aforesaid two contentions of Mr. Goyal. Even otherwise, it being settled law that the future prospects of the deceased must be taken into account while calculating the loss of dependency of his legal representatives, the appellants deserve an enhanced amount of compensation on this score, apart from the grant of non-pecuniary benefits in addition. Thus, taking into account the fact that the deceased was 33 years of age, an addition of 50% must be made to his assessed income. Deducting 1/4th therefrom in view of the fact that the deceased had six dependents, the loss of dependency per month of the appellants works out to ` 810/- per month, that is, ` 720/- plus ` 360/- = ` 1080/- divided by 4 = ` 270/- per month x 3 = ` 810/- per month. Thus calculated, the total loss of dependency of the appellants works out to ` 810/- x 12 x 16 = ` 1,55,520/-.
5. Apart from the aforesaid amount of pecuniary damages, the appellants are held entitled to a sum of ` 2,500/- for loss of consortium, another sum of ` 2,500/- towards loss of estate and the sum of ` 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, in all a sum of ` 7,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. Thus, the total compensation works FAO 56/1990 Page 4 of 5 out to ` 1,62,520/- (that is, ` 1,55,520/- plus ` 7,000/-) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid by the Insurance Company to the appellants within 30 days from today by depositing the aforesaid amount with the Registrar General of this Court.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. CM Nos.5057/2006 and 16296/2008 also stand disposed of.
REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) April 18, 2011 km FAO 56/1990 Page 5 of 5