Delhi District Court
Smt. Komal Singla @ Komal Gupta vs Haryana Roadways on 24 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA,
JUDGE, MACT-1 (CENTRAL), DELHI.
Suit No.444/11 (New No.57434/16)
Unique Case ID No.02401C-0132782008
1. Smt. Komal Singla @ Komal Gupta
W/o Late Raj Kumar Singla
R/o 4105, 1st Floor, Naya Bazar, Delhi-54
2. Yshica Singla
D/o Late Raj Kumar Singla
R/o 4105, 1st Floor, Naya Bazar, Delhi-54
(Through natural guardian Smt. Komal Singla)
........PETITIONERS
Versus
1. Haryana Roadways
Through its Transport Commissioner,
Govt. of Haryana,
30, Bays Building, Sector-17,
Chandigarh. (Owner)
2. Shri Ashwini Kumar
S/o Shri Jagan Nath
R/o Village Gumti, Thana Shahbad,
Haryana (Driver)
Also at:
Govt. of Haryana,
30, Bays Building, Sector-17,
Chandigarh.
3. Shri Gian Chand Singhla
R/o 42, Tagore Nagar,
Near Ekta Vihar Chowk,
Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41
Ambala Cantt., Haryana (Father of deceased)
4. Smt. Krishna Singhla
W/o Shri Gian Chand Singhla,
R/o 42, Tagore Nagar,
Near Ekta Vihar Chowk,
Ambala Cantt., Haryana (Mother of deceased)
5. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.
SCO No.174-175, Sector-9C, Chandigarh. (Insurer)
.......RESPONDENTS
Date of filing of Claim Petition : 04.01.2008
Arguments heard on : 06.08.2016
Judgment pronounced on : 24.08.2016
JUDGMENT
1. Present claim petition has been preferred under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.3,50,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crore Fifty Lakh Only) in respect of accidental death of Raj Kumar Singla (since deceased) in a motor vehicular accident. It may also be appropriate to reflect at this stage that Shri Raj Kumar Singla along with his daughter Saloni Singla aged about 12 years had suffered fatal injuries in a motor vehicular accident on 21.10.2007 but the claim petition in respect of Saloni Singla has been subsequently incorporated by way of amendment application filed on 27.03.2015 claiming compensation for a Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only).
As per the case of petitioners, on 21.10.2007 deceased Raj Kumar Singla left to meet his parents (i.e. Respondent No.3 & 4 namely, Shri Gian Chand Singla and Smt. Krishna Singla) at Ambala, Haryana. On his way back, deceased Raj Kumar Singla proceeded to Delhi in Honda City car bearing registration No. HR-99AU-3130 (temporary number) driven by him along with his wife Komal Singla and daughters Saloni Singla (aged 12 years) and Yschica Singla (aged 07 years). When the car reached near Kaler Petrol Pump, Pipli Kurukshetra Road, T-Point Sector-7 Kurukshetra, the same was hit by Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration No. HR- 65-1048 coming from opposite direction which was driven by Respondent No.2 Ashwini Kumar in a rash and negligent manner. The offending bus collided with the Honda City car after crossing the road divider as it went out of control being driven at a reckless speed. Consequently, Raj Kumar Singla along with Kumari Saloni Singla suffered fatal injuries and expired at the spot while Komal Singla @ Komal Gupta (wife of the deceased) and Yschica Singla (daughter of the deceased) suffered serious injuries and were shifted to Ashirwad Nursing Home, Kurukshetra. It is further the case of petitioners that Respondent No.2/driver of the offending bus fled from the spot. FIR No.544 dated 21.10.2007 u/s 279/337/304-A IPC PS: City Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra was registered regarding the accident.
It is further the case of petitioners that deceased Raj Kumar Singla aged about 36 years was an engineer (B.Tech Electronics & Communication) from Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh and was working as Project Manager with Nokia Telecommunications at Finland as a Software Design Engineer since 1999. Further, prior to the accident he had shifted to India and joined as Research and Development Manager with Nokia Siemens Networks Pvt. Ltd. at Gurgaon, Haryana at a package of Rs.27 Lakh per annum and incentive target of Rs.3,37,500/- per annum. It was also claimed that father of deceased was not financially dependent upon the deceased and was maintaining himself with his wife (i.e. mother of the deceased).
2. In the Written Statement filed on behalf of Respondent No.1 Haryana Roadways it was submitted that the accident had been caused in the process of saving a motorcyclist who all of a sudden had appeared before the bus from approach road from Ratgal side on the main road at T-Point of Sector-7, Kurukshetra. Further, in the process Respondent No.2 turned his bus towards his right side and in the process crossed the divider and bus turned over the car going from Kurukshetra to Pipli. The rash and negligent on the part of Respondent No.2 Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 was denied. It was further submitted that the bus no. HR-65- 1048 was insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. for the period 03.01.2007 to 02.01.2008 which covers the date of accident. The petition was further stated to be bad for non-joinder of insurance company with which the bus was insured.
In the written statement filed on behalf of Respondent No.2/driver of the offending vehicle, the rash and negligent driving on the part of Respondent No.2 was denied and the stand taken in the written statement of Respondent No.1 was reiterated.
In the written statement filed on behalf of Respondent No.3 & 4 (i.e. parents of the deceased), it was submitted that the respondent no. 3 & 4 are entitled to get the compensation as they were being looked after by the deceased. It was further submitted that the deceased had been contributing towards the treatment of Respondent No. 4 who is a cancer patient for more than seven years and further Respondent No.3 was to retire from the services on 31.08.2008.
In the written statement filed on behalf of Respondent No.5 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd./insurer of the offending vehicle, it was submitted that insurance company is not liable to pay compensation as the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and further the Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 jurisdiction of the tribunal was challenged. It was further submitted that the accident had not taken place, as claimed in the petition and the matter had not been fairly investigated by the police. The compensation claimed was further stated to be exaggerated and exorbitant. However, it was admitted that vehicle no. HR-65-1048 was insured for the relevant period.
Similar stand was taken in the written statement filed on behalf of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. and Respondent No.1 & 2 to the amended claim petition whereby compensation in respect of death of Saloni Singla (minor) was subsequently claimed.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for consideration by ld. Predecessor vide order dated 29.05.2009:-
(i) Whether the deceased Shri Raj Kumar Singla had died due to the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 21.10.2007 because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. HR-65-1048 (Haryana Roadways Bus) by respondent no.2?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41
(iii) Relief.
Further, vide order dated 15.07.2015, following additional issues were also framed qua the compensation in respect of death of Saloni Singla (minor) as the claim was incorporated by way of amendment.
(iv)Whether the deceased Saloni Singla had died due to the injuries sustained by her in an accident which took place on 21.10.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No.HR 65 1048 (Haryana Roadways bus) by Respondent No.2?
(v) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation qua deceased Saloni Singla, if so, to what amount and from whom?
4. In support of the claim, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioners, namely PW1 Komal Singla (wife of deceased), PW2 Sanjeev Garg and PW3 Surender Rawat.
PW1 Smt. Komal Singla testified on the lines of Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 the claim petition and proved attested copy of marriage certificate (Ex.PW1/1); original death certificate of deceased (Ex.PW1/2); certified copies of criminal case record (Ex.PW1/3 colly 23 sheets); original salary slip of the deceased (Ex.PW1/4), copies of receipt of school fees of children of deceased (Mark A to G) and copy of passport of the deceased (Mark H).
On cross-examination, she clarified that deceased was posted in Finland in the year 1999 though she had not placed any document in this regard. She also admitted that no document had been filed regarding educational qualifications of the deceased. She further clarified that they had come to India in the year 2007 and at the aforesaid time were residing at Gurgaon. She also admitted that appointment letter of her husband had not been filed on record along with salary account. She further denied the suggestion that the car had been hit from behind and due to the impact the car had collided with Haryana Roadways bus. She further denied that her husband was not possessing a valid driving licence.
PW1 further tendered her additional affidavit in evidence on 14.10.2015 in support of the claim petition in respect of death of her daughter deceased Saloni Singla and proved the death certificate (Ex.PW1/B), original letter dated 08.08.2007 from Scottish High International School regarding admission of Saloni Singla in 5th class (Ex.PW1/6), postmortem report and death certificate of Saloni Singla (Ex.PW1/D).
Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 PW2 Sanjeev Garg (eyewitness to the accident) testified that the deceased was his brother in law and he had been following the car of deceased on his two wheeler for some personal work along with one Ashish. Further, the accident was caused as the Haryana Roadways bus no. HR-65-1408 coming from Pipli side in a rash and negligent manner collided with central verge and crossed over to the other side of the road and collided with Honda City car driven by deceased Raj Kumar Singla. Consequently, Raj Kumar Singla and his daughter Saloni suffered fatal injuries.
On cross-examination, he clarified that he was behind the car of the deceased at a distance of 20-25 metres and there were 3 or 4 vehicles in between the car driven by the deceased and his vehicle. He further denied the suggestion that he could not have seen the accident. He further clarified that after the accident he pulled out the daughters of the deceased from the car and took her and petitioner no. 1 to Ashirwad Nursing Home near the place of accident. He further denied the suggestion that accident had taken place with three wheeler scooter and not with Haryana Roadways bus.
PW3 Shri Surender Rawat from Nokia Siemens Network, Gurgaon proved the authority letter issued by the company in his favour (Ex.PW3/1). He further deposed that Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 Shri Raj Kumar Singla was employed as an R&D Specialist with the company w.e.f. 01.09.2007 to 21.10.2007 and proved the copies of employment record along with salary slip certified by Manager, Data Processing as Ex.PW3/2 (6 pages).
On cross-examination, he further produced a photocopy of resolution of the Board (Ex.PW3/DA). He further deposed that basic salary of the deceased was recorded in salary certificate (Ex.PW3/2 colly) and clarified that the company had not provided any residential accommodation to the deceased. He also stated that Form 16 in respect of payment of income tax had also been placed along with documents exhibited as Ex.PW3/2.
No evidence was led on behalf of respondent insurance company and proforma respondent no. 3 & 4.
Respondent no.2/driver of the offending vehicle examined himself as R2W1.
R2W1 Ashwini Kumar testified on the lines of written statement and stated that on 21.10.2007 in the process of saving a motorcyclist who suddenly appeared before the bus from the approach road, the deponent turned the bus towards right side and in the process crossed the divider and turned over a car going from Kurukshetra to Pipli side.
On cross-examination, he admitted that he was arrested by the police and did not make any complaint to any senior police officer in respect of false implication. He further Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 deposed that he had been acquitted by the court of Smt. Raj Gupta, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra vide judgment dated 26.05.2011 in FIR No. 544/2007 (Ex.R2W1/2).
5. I have heard arguments addressed by counsel for the parties and perused the record.
My Issue-wise findings are as under :-
Since Issue No.(i) and Additional Issue No.(iv) are common, the same are taken up together for disposal.
(i) Whether the deceased Shri Raj Kumar Singla had died due to the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 21.10.2007 because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. HR-65-1048 (Haryana Roadways Bus) by respondent no.2?
(iv)Whether the deceased Saloni Singla had died due to the injuries sustained by her in an accident which took place on 21.10.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No.HR 65 1048 (Haryana Roadways bus) by Respondent No.2?
In Bimla Devi and Ors. V. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530, it was held Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 that in a petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Claim Tribunal has to decide the negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Sakshi Bhutani & ors, MAC APP. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mittal (Delhi High Court), it was observed that it has to be borne in mind that the Motor Vehicles Act does not envisage holding a trial for a petition preferred under Section 166 of the Act. Under Section 168 of the Act, a Claims Tribunal is enjoined to hold an inquiry to determine compensation which must appear to it to be just. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Further in State of Mysore Vs. S.S. Makapur, 1993 (2) SCR 943, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are not courts and are not bound by strict rules of evidence. The relevant portion of the report is extracted hereunder:
".......that tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are not courts and that therefore they are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in courts nor are they bound by strict rules of evidence. They can unlike courts, obtain all information for the points under the enquiry from all sources, and through all channels, without being fettered by rules and procedure, which govern proceedings in court. The only obligation which the law casts on them is that they should not act on any information which they may receive unless they put it to the party against whom it is to be used and give him a fair opportunity to explain it. What is a fair opportunity depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but where such an opportunity has been given, the proceedings are not Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 open to attack on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure followed in courts."
Reference may also be made to observations in Ranu Bala Paul & Others vs. Bani Chakraborty 1999 ACJ 634 Gauhati wherein the claim was allowed after consideration of FIR before the Tribunal.
"In deciding a matter Tribunal should bear in mind the caution struck by the Apex Court that a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case in order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, but in a claim before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal the standard of proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before the Tribunal, there must be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. But the Tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt the nicety of a civil or of a criminal case. After all, it is a summary enquiry and this is a legislation for the welfare of the society. In N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Marumai Ammal, 1980 ACJ 435 (SC), the Supreme Court pointed out that the Accidents Claims Tribunal must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and persons liable do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here and some obscurity there. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. The court is bound to take broad view of the whole matter."
As per testimony of PW1 & 2, the accident had been caused since the offending bus No. HR-64-1048 driven in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed crossed over the divider Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 and turned over the car. The testimony could not be dented during the cross-examination and the negligence is implicit from the fact that the bus crossed over the wrong side of the road after hitting the divider. Testimony of PW1 who herself was injured in the accident cannot be doubted and even the presence of PW2 could not be dented during cross-examination.
The accident even stands admitted by R2W1 Ashwini Kumar but it is submitted that the accident had resulted in order to save a motorcyclist who suddenly appeared before the bus from the approach road from Ratgal side on the main road. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment Ex.R2W1/2 whereby the driver was acquitted in FIR No.544/2007.
However, it needs to be noticed that vide judgment (Ex.R2W1/2), Respondent No.2 was acquitted since neither the complainant, nor injured or any other witness of the occurrence was examined on behalf of the prosecution. Statement of PW1 Komal Singla who herself suffered injuries in the accident and testimony of PW2 Sanjeev Garg (eyewitness) cannot be ignored in the present proceedings which clearly establish that the accident had been caused due to rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.2. The stand taken by R2W1 (Respondent no.2) that the accident had been caused to save the motorcyclist does not appear to be supported during the police investigation and neither any complaint of false implication was filed on behalf of Respondent No.2 with any higher authority. Since Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 negligence is to be assessed on touchstone of preponderance of probability, it has been established that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration No. HR-65-1048 by Respondent No.2. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Assessment of compensation in respect of deceased Raj Kumar Singla
6. Issue No. (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
Counsel for petitioners contended that income of the deceased be assessed as per the salary record Ex.PW3/2 colly proved by PW3 Shri Surender Rawat (witness from Nokia Siemens Network Ltd.) at Rs.30,37,500/- per annum. Reliance in this regard was placed upon letter dated 11.12.2012 issued on behalf of the company thereby certifying that late Raj Kumar Singla was employed for the period 01.09.2007 to 21.10.2007 in R&D Department as an R&D Specialist at a total annual fixed salary of Rs.27 Lakh with an incentive bonus of Rs.3,37,500/-. Reference was also made to the screen shot of employee record management system placed by PW3 on record whereby the base Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 pay was reflected as Rs.27 Lakh and the incentive target at 12.5% as Rs.3,37,500/-. It was also submitted that along with the documents relied upon on behalf of the petitioners, an intent letter of appointment had been filed but the same was not proved on record whereby it was mentioned that the deceased would be paid gross emoluments of Rs.27 Lakh per annum on a cost to company basis along with the bifurcation of amount allocated under various heads on monthly basis as under
"{(basic-Rs.90,000/- FBPs-Rs.1,06,373/-, provident fund Rs.10,800/-, gratuity-Rs.4,327/-, taxable allowance Rs.13,500/-) (Cost to company Rs.2,25,000/-per month)}. It was urged by counsel for petitioners that unfortunately the deceased expired only after a short period of about one month and 20 days and as such the total emoluments/perks which the deceased would have drawn over a year as per the package of Rs.27 Lakh were not reflected in the pay slip for a single month. It was also pointed out that the salary slip did not refer to the gratuity and the contribution of the company towards provident fund along with other perks/emoluments which would have been payable if the deceased would have worked for a period of over a year. Reliance was further placed upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Appeal (Civil) 5830 of 2007 National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Indira Srivastava & Ors. decided on 12 December, 2007.
However, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners were vehemently opposed by counsel for insurance Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 company and it was submitted that the income proved by PW3 cannot be a substitute for the appointment letter and the emoluments are not supported by the pay slip for the month of September, 2007 along with Form-16. It was urged that as per the pay slip for the month of September, 2007 the total earnings were reflected as Rs.1,80,040/- which included basic salary of Rs.90,000/-, supplementary allowance Rs.76,540/- and taxable allowance Rs.13,500/-. It was further contended that the total tax for the annual income for the relevant Assessment Year 2008-09 would be much more than reflected in Form-16 as the same would fall within the tax bracket of 30%.
I have given considered thought to the contentions raised. The fact that deceased Raj Kumar Singla was employed as an R&D Specialist with Nokia Siemens Networks cannot be disputed. PW3 examined on behalf of the petitioners was duly authorized to produce the records as maintained by the company and his testimony could not be dented during brief cross- examination on the point of employment and salary drawn by the deceased. Ex.PW3/2 clearly certifies that the deceased was employed on total annual salary of Rs.30,37,500/- which includes fixed salary of Rs.27,00,000/- and incentive bonus of Rs.3,37,500/-. At the same time it can be noticed that the counsel for petitioners has also drawn attention towards the "Intent Letter of Appointment" issued to the deceased which reflects the gross pay emoluments as Rs.27,00,000/- per annum or Rs.2,25,000/- per month and is in consonance with the Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 'salary' proved by PW3. The same even if not technically proved can be looked into to compare with the bifurcation of salary details as referred in the pay slip and appear to be in consonance with the same. The 'cost to company' of Rs.2,25,000/- per month as reflected in 'Intent Letter of Appointment' reflects the bifurcation under various heads as follows: {Basic-Rs.90,000/-; FBP-Rs.1,06,373/-; provident fund-Rs.10,800/-; gratuity-Rs.4,327/-; taxable allowance- Rs.13,500/-}. The component of FBP referred above relates to medical, LTA, HRA, car lease/fuel/car maintenance (company leased car), supplementary allowance (upto 100% of FBP) as specified therein. However, the pay slip for the month of September, 2007 (Ex.PW3/2 colly) reflects the total earning as Rs.1,80,040/- under the headings: {i.e. basic-Rs.90,000/-; taxable allowance-Rs.13,500/- and supplementary allowance- Rs.76,540/- along with deductions for provident fund- Rs.10,800/-; income tax-Rs.57,428/- and LWF-Rs.5/-}. Admittedly, a mere comparison of the various components as specified under Intent Letter of Appointment and pay slip would reflect that the component of provident fund to be contributed by the company and FBP have not been taken into account as the pay slip related only for the month of September, 2007 though the cost to company is specified at Rs.2,25,000/- per month or Rs.27,00,000/- per annum as per documents proved by PW3. It may also be noticed that as per Form-16, apart from salary of Rs.1,80,040/- per month, value of perquisites u/s 17(2) Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 has been reflected as Rs.27,006/- and as such gross total income in Form-16 has been taken as Rs.2,07,046/- in the month of September, 2007. I am of the considered opinion that a narrow definition cannot be given to the income to exclude all the allowances in view of observations Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 8 in Appeal (Civil) 5830 of 2007 National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Indira Srivastava & Ors. as under:
"8. The term "income" has different connotations for different purposes. A court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. Loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetary terms".
In view of above, there is no reason to restrict the gross income of deceased to Rs.1,80,040/- as reflected in the pay slip for the month of September, 2007. However, it may be noticed that the 'cost to company' also reflects FBP component which includes 'car lease/fuel/car maintenance etc.' and it may not be appropriate to include the same for computation of income for purpose of assessment. As such, it may be pragmatic to take the income at Rs.2,07,046/- per month inclusive of perquisites as reflected at Rs.27,006/- in Form-16. I am further of the considered opinion that the component of 'incentive target' of Rs.3,37,500/- cannot be included for purpose of computation of Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 income as the same was dependent upon the performance and the same could have been considered only on completion of one year of service. The salary of the deceased is accordingly taken as Rs.2,07,046/- per month or Rs.24,84,552/- per annum for the purpose of computation of compensation. The tax for the relevant year also needs to be deducted at Rs.5,94,366/- as computed by counsel for petitioners which has not been disputed on behalf of respondents. The annual salary after deduction of tax is accordingly taken as Rs.18,90,186/- per annum for purpose of computation of compensation.
(b) If addition in income towards future
prospects is to be made
Counsel for petitioners urged that addition towards future prospects be made by 50% while assessing the income of the deceased. However, the same was opposed by counsel for the insurance company.
In Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65 while approving the ratio with regard to future prospects in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 and relying on General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176; Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179 and Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India & Anr., 2003 (3) SCC 148, the Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"38. With regard to the addition to income for future prospects, in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 :
(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002], this Court has noted the earlier decisions in Susamma Thomas [Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335], Sarla Dixit [(1996) 3 SCC 179] and Abati Bezbaruah [Abati Bezbaruah v. Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 746] and in para 24 of the Report held as under: (Sarla Verma case [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] , SCC p. 134):
"24. ... In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the de- ceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words „actual salary‟ should be read as „actual salary less tax‟). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks be- ing applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special cir- cumstances."
39. The standardization of addition to income for future prospects shall help in achieving certainty in arriving at appropriate compensation. We approve the method that an addition of 50% of actual salary be made to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and the addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years and no addition should be Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 made where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the actual salary shall mean actual salary less tax. In the cases where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for fu- ture prospects will be appropriate. A departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary cir- cumstances and very exceptional cases."
The deceased in the instant case was permanently em- ployed as R&D Specialist at a senior position and his salary was likely to increase with passage of time. In view of the le- gal position as pointed out above, since the deceased was aged about 36 years, an addition of 50% is to be made to- wards future prospects for the purpose of assessment of compensation.
(c) Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:
As per Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, 1/4th where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 and 1/5th where the number of dependent family member exceeds 6.
In the present case, the deceased is survived by petitioner no. 1 & 2 (i.e. wife and daughter) as well as by his parents (Respondent No.3 & 4). It had been claimed on behalf Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 of the petitioners that parents of the deceased were not financially dependent since father of the deceased was working at the relevant time on the date of accident.
However, the same was vehemently disputed by counsel for Respondent No.3 & 4 and it was submitted that father of deceased had subsequently retired in 2008 and mother of the deceased was undergoing treatment for cancer. It was also urged that deceased had been contributing for the sustenance of his parents.
It is settled that father is generally not considered as a dependent on the son, specifically so, in case he is employed. In the facts and circumstances, for the purpose of assessment of compensation, the number of dependents is taken as three. However, this is without prejudice to the fact that father of the deceased shall also be entitled to some compensation considering the fact that he had retired in the year 2008 and deceased would have also supported him in the post retirement period.
In the facts and circumstances, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased shall be 1/3rd as per Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121.
(d) Selection of multiplier:
As per salary slip of the deceased Ex.PW3/2 (colly), the date of birth of deceased Raj Kumar Singla is 24.11.1970.
Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 In view of above, on the date of accident i.e. 21.10.2007 the deceased was aged about 36 years 11 months approximately. Accordingly as per Sarla Verma's case (supra), multiplier of 15 is to be adopted for the purpose of assessment of compensation.
(e) Loss of financial dependency The loss of financial dependency of the petitioners is accordingly assessed at Rs.2,83,52,790/- (Rupees Two Crore Eighty Three Lakh Fifty Two Thousand Seven Hundred & Ninety Only) [i.e. Rs.18,90,186/- (annual income) + Rs.9,45,093/- (50% addition towards future prospects) X 15 (multiplier) X 2/3 (dependency)].
7. Compensation under non-pecuniary heads:
Though a wide discretion in determination of compensation is given but the amplitude of such powers has to be exercised in consonance with settled principles and it needs to be borne in mind that compensation is neither expected to be windfall or bonanza or source of profit but at the same time should not be pittance.
It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 that the compensation is to be awarded for a sum of Rs.1 lakh each towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium to wife, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate.
Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 However, counsel for petitioner has relied upon MAC APP 160/2015 and CM No.2915/2015 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Usha & Ors. decided on 5 May, 2016 decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Gauba to contend that the petitioners may be awarded Rs.1.5 Lakh each under the heads "loss of love & affection and loss of consortium" along with Rs.50,000/- each on account of "funeral expenses and loss of estate".
There is no doubt on the proposition that the value of money has substantially eroded over the period of time on account of inflation and as such the amount awarded under the non-pecuniary heads needs to be revisited. However, it needs to be noticed that in MAC APP 160/2015 (supra) relied by counsel for the petitioners, the amount under the non-pecuniary heads had been enhanced since the death had occurred on 02.09.2013 while in Shashikala vs. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150 as well as in Rajesh vs. Rajbir (supra) the amount had been awarded in context of the accidents which occurred on 14.12.2006 & 05.10.2007 respectively. In the present case since the death had occurred on 21.10.2007, the compensation for loss of love & affection and loss of consortium is awarded for a sum of Rs.1 Lakh each.
It may further be noticed that Hon'ble Apex Court awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- to each parent for loss of love and affection relying upon judgement passed in M. Mansoor v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 ACJ 2849 (SC).
Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 Further, interest @ 9% per annum was awarded on the award amount by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC).
Considering the facts and circumstances, petitioners are entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.1 lakh towards loss of consortium to wife, Rs.1 lakh towards loss of love and affection to wife and children, Rs.50,000/- each to parents of deceased for loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses of deceased.
8. Petitioners/claimants are accordingly entitled to compensation computed as under in respect of death of Raj Kumar Singla:
Loss of financial dependency Rs.2,83,52,790/-
Loss of Consortium to Wife Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of love and affection to
wife & children Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of love and affection to parents
(i.e. Rs.50,000/- each) Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/-
________________
Total Rs.2,86,87,790/-
________________
(Rupees Two Crore Eighty Six Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred & Ninety Only) The claimants/petitioners are also entitled to interest Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition w.e.f. 04.01.2008 till realization.
The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioners.
9. Disbursement of compensation amount awarded in respect of deceased Raj Kumar Singla Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire amount be released to the petitioners which has been vehemently disputed by counsel for Respondent No.3&4, who are the parents of deceased.
It may be observed that though it has been claimed on behalf of petitioner no.1 that she had been living separately and had not been supported by parents of deceased but it cannot be ignored that the deceased had also been partially supporting his parents during his lifetime. Mother of the deceased had also been undergoing treatment for cancer and, as such, the deceased would have definitely contributed towards sustenance of his parents in the old age despite the fact that his father has been drawing pension. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that out of the total compensation amount, petitioner no. 1 Smt. Komal Singla (wife of deceased) shall be entitled to 50%, petitioner no.2 Yshica Singla (daughter of deceased) shall be entitled to 20%, Respondent No.3 Shri Gian Chand Singla (father of Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 deceased) shall be entitled to 10% and Respondent No.4 Smt. Krishna Singla (mother of deceased) shall be entitled to 20% along with proportionate interest thereon.
On realization, out of the share of petitioner no.1 Smt. Komal Singla (wife of deceased), 10% shall be released to her and remaining amount of her share shall be kept in fifteen fixed deposits of equal amount in her name with a nationalized bank for a period of one year, two years, three years, four years, five years, six years, seven years, eight years, nine years, ten years, eleven years, twelve years, thirteen years, fourteen years and fifteen years respectively, without the facility of advance, loan or premature withdrawal with release of quarterly periodical interest in her account.
Further, the share of petitioner no.2 Yshica Singla shall be kept in a fixed deposit in her name till she attains the age of 21 years, without the facility of advance, loan or premature withdrawal with release of quarterly periodical interest in the account of petitioner no.1 Komal Singla/mother for the benefit of minor.
Further, out of share of Respondent No.3&4 (i.e. parents of deceased), 10% shall be released to them and remaining amount of their respective shares shall be kept in seven fixed deposits of equal amount in their names with a nationalized bank for a period of one year, two years, three years, four years, five years, six years and seven years Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 respectively, without the facility of advance, loan or premature withdrawal with release of quarterly periodical interest in their account.
10. Additional Issue No.(v) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation qua deceased Saloni Singla, if so, to what amount and from whom?
Counsel for the insurance company relied upon Civil Appeal No.7137 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.21139 of 2011) Kishan Gopal & Anr. vs. Lala & Ors. decided on 26 August, 2013 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the purpose of assessment of compensation.
However, it may be noticed that the method of calculation of compensation in accident claim cases involving death of children in Motor Vehicular Accident has been further clarified in MAC Appeal No.554/10 Chetan Malhotra vs. Lala Ram along with fifteen other appeals decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Gauba on 13.05.2016 (Delhi High Court). Taking note of all the relevant judgments on the issue for determination of compensation in case involving death of children, the conclusions have been made in para 62 to 74 as under:
"62. The tribunals and courts will have to break free from the groove or strait-jacket of the stale, outdated and obso- lete prescription of the second schedule to M.V. Act. Time has come, and it is the obligation of this court to do so, to Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 bring the benchmark in Second Schedule to M.V. Act upto date, in the present matters for purposes of award of com- pensation in the case of death of children so as to make it "just" and "reasonable". The issue is about the proper mode of achieving this objective.
63. As noted above, the learned single Judge of this court, sitting in appeal over the judgments of the tribunal in the case of R.K. Malik (supra) while assessing the non-pecu- niary damages had improved upon what was granted in Lata Wadhwa (supra) in relation to an accident of 1989 by applying the cost of inflation index notified by the Govern- ment of India under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The computation thus made was eventually approved by the Supreme Court, though with further addition to- wards future prospects. This holds the key to the predica- ment faced.
64. A similar route was taken by another single bench of this Court in a case for compensation arising out of an in- cident of terrorism in Kamla Devi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2005 ACJ 216 (Delhi): 114 (2004) DLT 57, wherein the value of the conventional sum awarded in Lata Wadhwa (supra) was improved upon by applying the consumer price index for industrial workers [CPI (IW)]. The view in Kamla Devi (supra) was followed in a number of subsequent deci-
sions of this Court in cases reported as Ashwani Gupta v. Government of India & Ors. 117 (2005) DLT 112; Tasleema v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. ILR (2009) 6 Del 486 : (2009) 161 DLT 660 (DB); Nagrik Sangarsh Samiti & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. ILR (2010) 4 Del 293 :
2012 ACJ 1548; Swarn Singh v. Union of India 2010 SCC Online Del 1190 and Ashok Sharma & Ors. v. Union of In- dia & Ors. ILR (2008) 1 Del 96 : 2009 ACJ 1063.
65. Having regard to the fluctuating trends in CPI (IW), this court finds the Cost Inflation Index (CII) determined and notified by the Ministry of Finance in Government of India under Section 48 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for each fi-
nancial year, to be a better method to off-set the effect of in- flation on the real value of money. This approach, if fol- lowed, would ensure that there is no inconsistency in the awards of compensation in cases of death of children. [R.K.Malik (supra) and Balram Prasad v. Kumar Saha (2014) 1 SCC 384]. Since the amount which requires to be Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 subjected to correction was determined by decision in R.K.- Malik wherein cause of action had arisen on 10.11.1997, the financial year 1997-98 is taken as the "base year".
21.For ready reference, the rates of Cost Inflation Index (CII) notified by the government till date, to the extent necessary, are reproduced in the table given below:
Financial Year CII Financial Year CII Before 1/4/1981 100 2004-05 480 1981-82 100 2005-06 497 1982-1983 109 2006-07 519 XXX XXX 2007-08 551 1997-98 331 2008-09 582 1998-99 351 2009-10 632 1999-2000 389 2010-11 711 2000-01 406 2011-12 785 2001-02 426 2012-13 852 2002-03 447 2013-14 939 2003-04 463 2014-15 1024 2015-16 1081 CONCLUSIONS
67. In the considered view of this Court, the cases for com- pensation on account of death of children in motor vehicu- lar accident cases ought to be dealt with by considering the claim towards pecuniary damages (towards loss to estate), in accordance with the age-group wise categories as in R.K.Malik (supra); the first category being of children less than 10 years‟ in age, the second category being of chil- dren more than 10 years‟ and up to 15 years‟ in age, and the third category of children more than 15 years‟ but not having attained the age of majority (18 years). The children in the third category would ordinarily be of such age group as is generally receiving formal school education or those that are (being) imparted special training so as to be equipped with requisite skills to be gainfully employed in a Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 variety of trades. They are after all nearing adulthood and thus, on the threshold of becoming self-reliant. In such cases, the prospects of their employability and earnings in future or present, based on evidence adduced about their academic track record or training in special talents or skills, would need to be borne in mind. As in Lata Wadhwa (supra), the claim for pecuniary damages arising out of death of children of this age group cannot be at par with the lower age groups falling in the first and second cate- gory. Therefore, the pecuniary loss to estate due to their death would deserve to be worked out by applying a higher multiplier on the notional income (of non-earning persons) unless, of course, case is properly made out for higher con- siderations. Noticeably, in Sarla Verma (supra) the Supreme Court specified the multiplier of 18 for cases where the deceased was in the age-group of 15 years‟ to 20 years‟ old. For the first and second category, however, the multiplier of 10 and 15 respectively, as used in R.K. Malik (supra), would hold good.
68. Since in the claims arising out of death of children, generally speaking, (non-earning hands), the income is to be notionally assumed on the basis of the second schedule to the MV Act, the general practice of deduction of one-half (50%) towards personal & living expenses, as applied in case of bachelors above the age of 18 years would be un- fair. Pertinently, the notional income specified for non- earning persons in the second schedule is very low as com- pared to the rates of minimum wages. Therefore, the deduc- tion of one-third (1/3rd) on this account, as provided by the first note below the second schedule would only be appro- priate.
69. The award of compensation must necessarily take into account non-pecuniary damages. In R.K. Malik (supra), 75,000/- awarded by this Court as the "conventional com- pensation" was enhanced by the Supreme Court by further similar amount (75,000/-) as the "compensation for future prospects". For the reasons set out earlier, in the context of pecuniary loss to estate, the composite sum of non-pecu- niary damages of 1,50,000/- [as awarded in R.K. Malik (supra)] would deservedly be added, but with suitable cor- rection so as to ensure that the deficiency in the real value of money is made good. As noted (in para 46) earlier, the Supreme Court justified the addition of `75,000/- towards Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 compensation for "future prospects" by noting that the said amount was "roughly half of the amount given on account of pecuniary damages". Since the court had also upheld the award of similar sum (`75,000/-) by this court as "con- ventional compensation", both amounts of non-pecuniary damages, put together, account for roughly an amount equivalent to the sum computed as pecuniary loss to estate. Thus, this court is of the view that a composite sum equal to the amount computed as pecuniary loss to estate may be added as non-pecuniary damages (inclusive of conven- tional compensation and for future prospects), in such cases as at hand to arrive at the appropriate figure of „just compensation‟.
70. It has been noticed by this Court that the tri- bunals have been assessing the compensation and award- ing it to the last rupee, at times even in the fraction of a ru- pee, not bothering to follow the practice of rounding off. Awards in at least two of the cases from which the appeals at hand arise provide ready illustration. This seems to be not correct. It must be added here that human misery can- not be calculated with such mathematical precision. Even otherwise for convenience of accounting, it is desirable that the amount of award is rounded off to the nearest (if not next) thousands of rupees.
71. Subject to all other requisite conditions being fulfilled, for the foregoing reasons, in order to bring about consistency and uniformity in approach to the issue, it is held that claims for compensation on account of death of children shall be determined as follows :
(i). Till such time as the law is amended by the legislature, or the Central Government notifies the amendment to the Second Schedule in exercise of the enabling power vested in it by Section 163-A (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and except in cases wherein the prospects of employability and earnings (in future or present) of the deceased child are proved by cogent and irrefutable evidence, this having regard, inter alia, to the academic record or training in special talents or skills, for computing the pecuniary dam-
ages on account of the loss to estate, the notional income of non-earning persons (`15000/-p.a.) as specified in the Sec- ond Schedule (brought in force from 14.11.1994), shall be assumed to be the income of the deceased child, and taken Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 into account after it is inflation-corrected with the help of Cost Inflation Index (CII) as notified by the Government of India from year to year under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by applying the formula indicated hereinafter.
(ii) For inflation-correction, the financial year of 1997- 1998 shall be treated as the "base year" and the value of the notional income relevant to the date of cause of action shall be computed in the following manner :-
` 15,000/- x A ÷331 [wherein the figure of „`15,000/-‟ represents the notional income specified in the second schedule requiring inflation- correction; „A‟ represents the CII for the financial year in which the cause of action arose (i.e. the accident / death occurred); and the figure of „331‟ represents the CII for the "base year"]
(iii). After arriving at an appropriate figure of the present equivalent value of the notional income (i.e. inflation-cor-
rected amount), it shall be rounded off to a figure in next thousands of rupees.
(iv). The amount of notional income thus calculated shall be reduced to two-third, the deduction to the extent of one- third being towards personal & living expenses of the de- ceased, the balance taken as the annual loss to estate (hereinafter also referred to as "the multiplicand").
(v). For assessment of the pecuniary damages on account of the death of children upto the age of 10 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated, capitalizing the multiplicand, by applying the multiplier of ten (10).
(vi). For children of the age-group of more than 10 years upto 15 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated by ap- plying the multiplier of fifteen (15).
(vii). For children of the age-group of more than 15 years but less than 18 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated by applying the multiplier of eighteen (18).
Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41
(viii). After the pecuniary loss to estate has been worked out in the manner indicated above, an amount equivalent to the amount thus computed shall be added to it as the com- posite non-pecuniary damages taking care of not only the conventional heads but also towards future prospects as awarded in R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal (2009) 14 SCC 1.
(ix). The final sum thus arrived at, appropriately rounded off, if so required to the nearest (if not next) thousands of rupees, shall be awarded as compensation for the death of the child.
72. The ruling in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Farzana (2009 ACJ 2763) was rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court on 14.07.2009. Though it had built upon the dispensation in R.K.Malik (supra), given the effect of inflation elaborately discussed above, it has out- lived its utility for cases relating to later years. At the same time, it must be noted, that the view in Farzana (supra) has governed the field till date, inasmuch as it has been fol- lowed by other single benches of this Court as also by tri- bunals in various cases. Given the modified method of cal- culation as is being determined by this judgment, it is pos- sible that in some of the earlier decided cases, the compen- sation computed on revised lines may fall below the amount of 3,75,000/-computed in Farzana (supra). Since the awards in such earlier decided cases were granted with ref- erence to the ratio in Farzana (supra), it will not be fair to order any modification in cases that relate to the period on or after 10.05.2000 (the date of cause of action in Farzana) so as to reduce the awards below the said amount of 3,75,000/-, particularly as some of such awards may al- ready have been satisfied, including on account of interim orders of this Court.
73. Thus, in cases founded on cause of action arising on or after 10.05.2000, the amount of compensation shall not in any case be less than 3,75,000/- which was awarded in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Farzana (2009 ACJ 2763).
74. Case-wise decisions taken hereinafter shall provide necessary illustrations for applying the above-directed method of computation."
Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41
63. It may further be observed that MAC Appeal No.580/2007 decided along with MAC Appeal No.554/10 Chetan Malhotra vs. Lala Ram (supra) involved death of a 07 years old child namely Yash Chouhan in an accident on 02.09.2002. Para 80 of the judgments referred to above gives a clear illustration for calculations of compensation and may be beneficially quoted.
"Case 'B' : MAC Appeal No. 580/2007 (in re: death of seven years' old child Yash Chouhan) "80. There is no evidence about the academic record of the child. The death had occurred on 02.09.2002 and there- fore, the CII for the financial year 2002-2003 (i.e. 447) would apply. As the age of the deceased child was 10 years, calculation has to be made on the multiplier of 10. The inflation-corrected notional income comes to (`15,000x447/331) `20,256/-, rounded off to `21,000/-. Af- ter deducting 1/3rd, and applying the multiplier of 10, the pecuniary loss to estate is computed as (`21,000 x 2/3 x 10) `1,40,000/-. Adding a similar account towards composite non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation works out to `2,80,000/-. However, in view of the decision in para- graph 73 (supra), the amount of compensation awarded in this case shall be 3,75,000/-. As in the preceding case, the rate of interest is increased to 9% p.a."
In the instant case, as per Birth Certificate of de- ceased Saloni Singla (Ex.PW1/5), her date of birth is 23.12.1997. As such, she was aged about 09 years 09 months & 28 days approximately on the date of accident (i.e. 21.10.2007).
It may be noticed that the present case is not a case for assessment of higher consideration in respect of deceased Saloni Singla who was aged about 09 years 09 months & 28 Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 days approximately, on account of any exceptional qualifica- tions.
Since the death had occurred on 21.10.2007, the CII for the financial year 2007-2008 (i.e.551) would apply. Since the age of the deceased was 09 years 09 months & 28 days, mul- tiplier of 10 would be applicable. The inflation-corrected no- tional income thus comes to (Rs.15,000/- X 551/331) Rs.24,969.78, rounded off to Rs.25,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, the annual pecuniary loss to estate comes to (Rs.25,000/- X 2/3) Rs.16,666.66 rounded off to Rs.17,000/-. As the age of the deceased was 09 years 09 months & 28 days, applying the multiplier of 10, the total pecu- niary loss to estate is computed as Rs.1,70,000/- (i.e. Rs.17,000/- X 10). Adding the similar amount towards compos- ite non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation payable in this case comes to Rs.3,40,000/-.
However, since it has been observed by the Hon'ble High Court in para 73 quoted above that in cases founded on cause of action arising on or after 10.05.2000, the amount of compensation shall not in any case be less than 3,75,000/- which was awarded in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Farzana (2009 ACJ 2763), petitioners in the present case shall be accordingly entitled to a sum of Rs.3,75,000/-.
Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 Since the present claim petition claiming compensa- tion in respect of Saloni Singla (minor) has been included only by way of amendment vide application dated 27.03.2015, peti- tioners shall be entitled to interest @ 9% from 27.03.2015 till re- alization.
The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioners.
11. Disbursement of compensation amount awarded in respect of deceased Kumari Saloni Singla Petitioner no. 1 Smt. Komal Singla (mother of deceased) shall be entitled to 70% and petitioner no.2 Yshica Singla (sister of deceased) shall be entitled to 30% of the award amount and proportionate interest thereon On realization, out of the share of petitioner no.1 Smt. Komal Singla (wife of deceased), 10% shall be released to her and remaining amount of her share shall be kept in five fixed deposits of equal amount in her name with a nationalized bank for a period of one year, two years, three years, four years and five years respectively, without the facility of advance, loan or premature withdrawal with release of quarterly periodical interest in her account.
Further, the share of petitioner no.2 Yshica Singla shall be kept in a fixed deposit in her name till she attains the age of 21 years, without the facility of advance, loan or Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 premature withdrawal with release of quarterly periodical interest in the account of petitioner no.1 Komal Singla/mother for the benefit of minor.
12. The FDRs in respect of compensation of deceased Raj Kumar Singla as well as Saloni Singla shall be prepared with the following conditions:-
i. The Bank shall open separate Savings Account in the name of petitioners/beneficiaries (R3/R4) and the entire interest on the aforesaid fixed deposit be credited in the said Savings Accounts periodically.
ii. The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the said Savings Accounts.
iii. Withdrawal from the aforesaid Savings Accounts shall be permitted to the petitioners/beneficiaries (R3/R4) after due verification and the bank shall issue photo identity cards to petitioners/beneficiaries (R3/R4) to facilitate the identity.
iv. No cheque book be issued to the petitioners/beneficiaries (R3/R4) without the permission of this Tribunal.
v. The original FDRs shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Books of the aforesaid Savings Accounts shall be given to petitioners/beneficiaries (R3/R4) along with photocopy of the FDRs.
vi. No loan, advance or premature withdrawal shall be allowed on the said FDRs without the permission of this Tribunal.
vii. At the request of the petitioners/beneficiaries (R3/R4), Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 the bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of a nationalized bank in Delhi according to the convenience of the petitioners.
13. It is further held that Respondent No.1 (Owner), Respondent No.2 (Driver) and Respondent No.3 (Insurer) of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to make the payment of compensation to the petitioners/claimants, as calculated above both in respect of death of Raj Kumar Singla as well as Saloni Singla (minor).
14. Relief Since the offending vehicle was duly insured, Respondent No.5/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.2,86,87,790/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 04.01.2008 till realization in respect of deceased Raj Kumar Singla AND the award amount of Rs.3,75,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 27.03.2015 till realization in respect of deceased Kumari Saloni Singla with Nazir of this Court within 30 days under intimation to the petitione rs/claimants, failing which the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. Insurance Company/driver and owner of the offending vehicle are also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41 in respect of deposit of the amount with the Tribunal to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc. in the court within 30 days from today.
A copy of this judgment be sent to Respondent No.5/ ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. for compliance within the time granted.
Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on 24th August, 2016 (Anoop Kumar Mendiratta) Judge MACT-1 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Suit No.444/11Komal Singla & Anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. Page | 39 of 41