Delhi District Court
Smt. Pinki vs Shri Parveen Kumar on 23 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA,
JUDGE, MACT-1, (CENTRAL-DISTRICT), DELHI.
SUIT NO.346/14
Unique Case ID No.02401C-0537622014
1. Smt. Pinki
W/o Late Shri Naresh Kumar (Wife)
2. Shri Gaurav
S/o Late Shri Naresh Kumar (Son)
3. Baby Ruby
Late Shri Naresh Kumar (Minor Daughter)
4. Shri Naurang
S/o Shri Kewal (Father of deceased)
5. Smt. Phoolo Devi
W/o Shri Naurang (Mother of deceased)
All R/o
Village Katlupur, P.O. Nahari, P.S. Kundali,
District Sonepat, Haryana.
(Petitioner No.3 being minor is represented by her
mother/natural guardian/Petitioner No.1 Smt. Pinki)
.......PETITIONERS
Versus
1. Shri Parveen Kumar
S/o Shri Virender Singh
R/o R-14, Swantantar Nagar,
Narela, Delhi - 110 040
Suit No.346/14 -(Smt. Pinki vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.) 1 of 21
2. Smt. Mamta
W/o Shri Raj Mal
R/o R-14, Swantantar Nagar,
Narela, Delhi - 110 040
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
JK House, U-59, Lampur Road,
Narela, Delhi.
....... RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution of the suit : 03.02.2005
Date of reserving judgment/order : 23.03.2015
Date of pronouncement : 23.03.2015
JUDGMENT
1. The present claim petition has been preferred by the petitioners U/s 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- in respect of the accidental death of Naresh Kumar (deceased) in the motor vehicle accident.
The award dated 20.04.2007 was initially passed by Ms. Shail Jain, Judge, MACT, Delhi whereby the claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by Respondent No. 1/driver of the offending truck bearing registration no. HR 69 0632. The case has thereafter been remanded back vide order dated 25.09.2014 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayant Nath in MAC APP. 460/2007 whereby the appeal preferred by the LR of Suit No.346/14 -(Smt. Pinki vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.) 2 of 21 the deceased (petitioners before the present court) was allowed and it was held that the testimony of PW3 read with chargesheet will show that respondent no. 1 (i.e. driver of the offending vehicle) was guilty of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The award dated 20.04.2007 to the aforesaid extent was accordingly set aside and the matter has been remanded back to adjudicate the balance issues and render a finding as per law. The case has been accordingly taken up and arguments heard. A brief reference is made to the facts and the issues framed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Naresh Kumar met with an accident on 11.09.2004 while driving his motorcycle at Ghoga Road, Near Village Harevali. The deceased is alleged to have been hit by TATA 407 bearing no. HR 69 0632 driven by Respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. Consequent to the injuries, deceased expired on 17.09.2004.
3. In the Written Statement filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 it was submitted that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of Respondent No.1. However, it was admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.3.
Respondent No. 3 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. admitted that the offending vehicle was insured for the period 06.02.2004 to 05.02.2005 covering the date of accident but the negligence on the part of offending vehicle was denied.
Suit No.346/14 -(Smt. Pinki vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.) 3 of 21
3. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for consideration vide order dated 14.09.2005 by ld. Predecessor.
(i) Whether deceased Naresh Kumar S/o Sh.
Naurang sustained fatal injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of Tata 407 no. HR-69-0632 by respondent no. 1 on 11/09/04 at about 9.30p.m. At Ghoga Road near village Harvel within P.S. Bawana, Delhi.
(ii) Whether petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
4. In support of the claim, petitioners examined three witnesses, namely, PW1 Smt. Pinki (Wife of the deceased) PW2 Shri Raj Singh (an employee of Rohit Gas Agency wherein the deceased was stated to be working) and PW3 Shri Devinder Singh (alleged eyewitness).
Respondent Insurance Company examined Shri Shankar Lal, Sr. Assistant who was deputed to investigate the fact of employment of deceased with Rohit Gas Agency.
Suit No.346/14 -(Smt. Pinki vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.) 4 of 21
5. I have heard arguments addressed by the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Counsel for petitioner made submissions on the lines of the averments made in the claim petition. However, it was fairly conceded by Shri Ashok Popli, Advocate that the evidence on the point of deceased Naresh Kumar being employed with Rohit Gas Agency at the relevant time is not convincing and trustworthy and as such the minimum wages of an unskilled labourer for the relevant period as on 01.01.2004 may be considered for the purpose of assessment of compensation. Counsel for petitioner also submitted that addition be further made towards the future prospects and income be accordingly assessed keeping in view the inflation and minimum wages notified from time to time.
On the other hand, counsel for Insurance Company Shri V.K. Gupta contended that the future prospects may not be added for the purpose of calculation of income of deceased, in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma & ors. V/s DTC & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC
121. Issue-wise findings are as under :-
6. Issue No. (i) Suit No.346/14 -(Smt. Pinki vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.) 5 of 21 Whether deceased Naresh Kumar S/o Sh.
Naurang sustained fatal injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of Tata 407 no. HR-69-0632 by respondent no. 1 on 11/09/04 at about 9.30p.m. At Ghoga Road near village Harvel within P.S. Bawana, Delhi?
In view of findings of the Hon'ble High Court in MAC APP 460/2007, the aforesaid issue on the point of rash and negligent driving by Respondent No.1 is no longer in question.
On the basis of evidence led on record it has already been held by the Hon'ble High Court that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.1. Issue No.1 accordingly stands decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
7. Issue No. (ii) Whether petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(a) For the purpose of assessment of income of deceased, Shri Ashok Popli, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner fairly conceded that the evidence on the point of deceased Naresh Kumar being employed with Rohit Gas Agency at the relevant time is not Suit No.346/14 -(Smt. Pinki vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.) 6 of 21 convincing and trustworthy and as such the minimum wages of an unskilled labourer for the relevant period as on 01.01.2004 may be considered for the purpose of assessment of compensation.
However, I have also scrutinized the record whereby the petitioners have led evidence of PW1 Smt. Pinki and PW2 Shri Raj Singh (an co-employee/Manager at Rohit Gas Agency) to contend that the deceased was employed at Rohit Gas Agency.
PW1 Smt. Pinki proved the certificate Ex.PW1/1 obtained from Rohit Gas Agency whereby it was certified that Naresh Kumar son of Naurang was working in the Gas Agency since 3 years as a Supervisor/Clerk and was drawing a salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month. To prove the aforesaid certificate PW2 Shri Raj Singh was examined who deposed that Naresh Kumar was working with Rohit Gas Agency and certificate was issued by him on behalf of the Agency as he was working as Manager.
On the face of record, PW2 did not produce any authorisation or document to show that he was working as a Manager with Rohit Gas Agency and was authorised to issue the aforesaid certificate. No letter of appointment or any other document regarding the employment of deceased with Rohit Gas Agency has been brought to my notice. No books of account were produced by PW-2 to show if salary of Rs.6,000/- was being disbursed in the accounts of the agency. There is no explanation as to why the owner or any authorised representative with relevant Suit No.346/14 -(Smt. Pinki vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.) 7 of 21 documents was not examined to prove the fact of employment of deceased. The fact of employment has also been vehemently disputed on behalf of Insurance Company and it has been submitted that R3W1 Shri Shankar Lal Investigator deputed by the company to verify the employment of deceased with Rohit Gas Agency categorically deposed that the deceased was not employed with the said Agency. The said statement also could not be dented in cross- examination. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the fact of employment of deceased with Rohit Gas Agency appears to be doubtful and has not been proved on record.
In the aforesaid background, the income of deceased has to be assessed on the basis of minimum wages of a labourer as on 11.09.2004 which were notified @ Rs.2,894.90 per month.
(b) If addition in income towards future prospects is to be made Petitioners have claimed that addition towards future prospects to the extent of 50% be made for purpose of assessment. However, the same is opposed on behalf of respondent Insurance Company and it is submitted that no addition towards future prospects is permissible in absence of any evidence with regard thereto.
As far as the addition towards the future prospects is concerned, the issue has been examined at great length by the Suit No.346/14 -(Smt. Pinki vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.) 8 of 21 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in various judgements wherein the law laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65 has been analysed in detail. Reference may be made to MAC APP. 325/2013 decided on 28th January, 2015 U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Shahida & Ors. by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mittal. In the aforesaid case, deceased Shaukat Ali aged about 37 years was alleged to be supplying milk and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and the Tribunal had awarded addition of 30% towards future prospects of the income of the deceased. However, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that no addition of 30% towards future prospects was permissible in the absence of any evidence with regard to future prospects. The observations made by the Hon'ble High Court on the aspect of calculation of future prospects as discussed in para 7 of aforesaid judgement in this regard are quoted for reference:
"7. As far as addition towards future prospects is concerned, the issue has been examined at great length by this Court in HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Lalta Devi &Ors. (supra). Paras 9 to 21 of the report in Lalta Devi are extracted hereunder:-
9. The learned counsel for the Claimants has referred to a three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 to contend that the future prospects have to be added in all cases where a person is getting fixed wages or is a seasonal employee or is a student.
10. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Claimants that the law laid down in Sarla Verma Suit No.346/14 -(Smt. Pinki vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.) 9 of 21 (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 was extended in Ra-
jesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 to hold that future prospects ought to be extended in all cases.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company refers to a three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65 wherein while approving the ratio with regard to future prospects in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. (supra) and relying on General Manag- er, 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 Supreme 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. Geo- logical 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 deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 Suit No.346/14 -(Smt. Pinki vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.) 10 of 21 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 being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the de-
ceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for an- nual 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 ap- propriate compensation. We approve the method that an addition of 50% of actu-
al salary be made to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a per- manent 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 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 provi-
sion for annual increments, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects will be appropriate. A departure from the above principle can only be justi-
fied in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases."
Suit No.346/14 -(Smt. Pinki vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.) 11 of 21
12. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company relies upon a Constitutional Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2005) 2 SCC 673; Safiya Bee v. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain @ Fasi, (2011) 2 SCC 94; and Union of India & Ors. v. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589 to contend that in case of divergence of opinion in judgments of benches of co-equal strength, earlier judgment will be tak- en as a binding precedent.
13. It may be noted that in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65; the three Judge Bench was dealing with a reference made by a two Judge Bench (S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, J.J.). The two Hon‟ble Judges wanted an authoritative pronouncement from a Larger Bench on the question of applicability of the multiplier and whether the inflation was built in the multiplier. The three Judge Bench ap- proved the two Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 with regard to the selection of mul- tiplier. It further laid down that addition to- wards future prospects to the extent of 50% of the actual salary shall be made towards future prospects when the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and addition of 30% should be made if the age of the deceased was be- tween 40-50 years. No addition towards future prospects shall be made where the deceased was self-employed or was getting a fixed salary with- out any provision of annual increment.
14. Of course, three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in its later judgment in Rajesh relying on Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (6) SCC 421 observed that there would be addition of 30% and 50%, depending upon the age of the deceased, towards future prospects even in the case of self-employed per- sons. It may, however, be noted that in Rajesh, the three Judge Bench decision in Reshma Ku- mari (supra) was not brought to the notice of their Lordships.
Suit No.346/14 -(Smt. Pinki vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.) 12 of 21
15. The divergence of opinion was noted by an- other three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways, (2014) 3 SCC 210. In paras 14 and 15, the Supreme Court observed as under:-
"14. Certain parallel developments will now have to be taken note of. In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan [(2009) 13 SCC 422 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 143 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1044], a two-Judge Bench of this Court while considering the following questions took the view that the issue(s) needed resolution by a larger Bench: (SCC p. 425, para 10) "(1) Whether the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Act should be scrupulously applied in all the cases?
(2) Whether for determination of the multiplicand, the Act provides for any criterion, particularly as regards de-
termination of future prospects?"
15. Answering the above reference a three- Judge Bench of this Court in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan [(2013) 9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826] (SCC p. 88, para 36) reiterated the view taken in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] to the effect that in respect of a person who was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments or who was self-employed the actual income at the time of death should be taken into account for determining the loss of income unless there are extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. Though the expression "exceptional and extraordinary circumstances" is not capable of any precise definition, in Shakti Devi v. New India Insur-
ance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 14 SCC 575 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 766 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 848] there is a practical application of the afore- said principle. The near certainty of the reg- ular employment of the deceased in a gov- ernment department following the retirement Suit No.346/14 -(Smt. Pinki vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.) 13 of 21 of his father was held to be a valid ground to compute the loss of income by taking into account the possible future earnings. The said loss of income, accordingly, was quantified at double the amount that the de- ceased was earning at the time of his death."
16. Further, the divergence of opinion in Resh- ma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 was noticed by the Supreme Court in another latest judgment in Na- tional Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpa & Ors., CC No.8058/2014, decided on 02.07.2014 and in concluding paragraph while making reference to the Larger Bench, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"Be it noted, though the decision in Reshma (supra) was rendered at earlier point of time, as is clear, the same has not been noticed in Rajesh (supra) and that is why divergent opinions have been expressed. We are of the considered opinion that as regards the manner of addition of income of future prospects there should be an authoritative pronouncement. Therefore, we think it ap-
propriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench."
17. Now, the question is which of the judgments ought to be followed awaiting answer to the ref- erence made by the Supreme Court in Pushpa & Ors. (supra).
18. In Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2005) 2 SCC 673 in para 12, the Supreme Court observed as under:-
"12. Having carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the parties and having ex-
amined the law laid down by the Con-
stitution Benches in the abovesaid deci-
sions, we would like to sum up the legal po- sition in the following terms:
Suit No.346/14 -(Smt. Pinki vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.) 14 of 21 (1) The law laid down by this Court in a de-
cision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or coequal strength.
(2) [Ed.: Para 12(2) corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./21/2005 dated 3- 3-2005.] A Bench of lesser quorum cannot dis- agree or dissent from the view of the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench whose de- cision has come up for consideration. It will be open only for a Bench of coequal strength to ex- press an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of coequal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the deci- sion laying down the law the correctness of which is doubted.
(3) [Ed.: Para 12(3) corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./7/2005 dated 17- 1-2005.] The above rules are subject to two exceptions: (i) the abovesaid rules do not bind the discretion of the Chief Justice in whom vests the power of framing the roster and who can direct any particular matter to be placed for hearing before any particular Bench of any strength; and
(ii) in spite of the rules laid down hereinabove, if the matter has already come up for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum and that Bench itself feels that the view of the law taken by a Bench of lesser quorum, which view is in doubt, needs correction or reconsideration then by way of exception (and not as a rule) and for reasons given by it, it may proceed to hear the case and examine the correctness of the previous decision in question dispensing with the need of a specific reference or the order of the Chief Justice con- stituting the Bench and such listing. Such was the situation in Raghubir Singh [(1989) 2 SCC 754] and Hansoli Devi [(2002) 7 SCC 273]."
Suit No.346/14 -(Smt. Pinki vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.) 15 of 21
19. Similarly, in Safiya Bee v. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain @ Fasi, (2011) 2 SCC 94 in para 27, the Supreme Court observed as under:-
"27. However, even assuming that the decision in WP No. 35561 of 1998 did not operate as res judicata, we are to observe that even if the learned Judges who decided WP No. 304 of 2001 did not agree with the view taken by a coordinate Bench of equal strength in the earlier WP No. 35561 of 1998 regarding the interpretation of Section 2(c) of the Act and its application to the petition schedule property, judicial discipline and practice required them to refer the issue to a larger Bench. The learned Judges were not right in overruling the statement of the law by a coordinate Bench of equal strength. It is an accepted rule or principle that the statement of the law by a Bench is con- sidered binding on a Bench of the same or lesser number of Judges. In case of doubt or disagreement about the decision of the earlier Bench, the well- accepted and desirable practice is that the later Bench would refer the case to a larger Bench."
20. In Union of India & Ors. v. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589 while holding that the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench is binding on the subsequent Bench of equal strength, held that the Bench of Co-ordinate strength can only make a reference to a larger Bench. In para 9 of the re- port, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"9. It may be noted that the decision in S.N. Narula case [(2011) 4 SCC 591] was prior to the decision in T.V. Patel case [(2007) 4 SCC 785 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 98] . It is well settled that if a subsequent coordinate Bench of equal strength wants to take a different view, it can only refer the matter to a larger Bench, otherwise the prior decision of a coordinate Bench is binding on the subsequent Bench of equal strength. Since, the decision in S.N. Narula case [(2011) 4 SCC 591] was not noticed Suit No.346/14 -(Smt. Pinki vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.) 16 of 21 in T.V. Patel case [(2007) 4 SCC 785 :
(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 98] , the latter decision is a judgment per incuriam. The decision in S.N. Narula case [(2011) 4 SCC 591] was binding on the subsequent Bench of equal strength and hence, it could not take a contrary view, as is settled by a series of judgments of this Court."
21. This Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harpal Singh & Ors., MAC APP.138/2011, decided on 06.09.2013, went into this question and held that in view of the report in S.K. Kapoor (supra), the three Judge Bench decision in Resh- ma Kumari & Ors. (supra) shall be taken as a binding precedent."
In the present case, in absence of any evidence with regard to future prospects, addition of income towards future prospects cannot be made for the purpose of compensation.
(c) Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:
As per Sarla Verma's Judgement, where the deceased was married, 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.
It has come up on record that deceased is survived by five members i.e. widow along with a son and a daughter and parents of deceased. In the facts and circumstances, the number of Suit No.346/14 -(Smt. Pinki vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.) 17 of 21 dependent legal heirs for the purpose of deduction have to be treated as 4 (four) since the father is normally not considered as dependent unless evidence is led to aforesaid extent on record. The deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased shall be accordingly 1/4 as held in Sarla Verma (supra).
(d) Selection of multiplier:
As per the postmortem report the age of the deceased is reflected as 29 years. PW1 Smt. Pinki also testified the age of the deceased as 29 years on the date of the accident which has not been controverted on record. In view of above, the age of the deceased on the date of accident is considered as 29 years. Further, as held in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, the relevant multiplier of 17 is to be adopted for purpose of assessment.
(e) Loss of financial dependency In the light of aforesaid facts, loss of financial dependency of the petitioners in this case comes to Rs.4,42,919.70 [i.e. Rs.2,894.90 X 12 (months) x 17 (multiplier) x 3/4].
8. Compensation under non-pecuniary heads:
The petitioners are further entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh Suit No.346/14 -(Smt. Pinki vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.) 18 of 21 each towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium to wife and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. The petitioners are further entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses considering the date of death which took place on 17.09.2004.
9. The petitioners/claimants are accordingly entitled to compensation computed as under:
Loss of financial dependency Rs. 4,42,919.70 Loss of Love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of consortium to wife Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000/-
Total Rs.6,57,919.70
Rounded off to Rs.6,57,920/-
(Rupees Six Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Only) The claimants/petitioners are also entitled to get interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition i.e. w.e.f. 03.02.2005 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.
Suit No.346/14 -(Smt. Pinki vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.) 19 of 21
10. For the purpose of disbursement, petitioner no. 1 Smt. Pinki (wife of the deceased) shall be entitled to 50% and petitioner nos. 2 to 5 shall be entitled to 10% each of the award amount and proportionate interest thereon.
11. It is further held that Respondent No.1 (driver), Respondent No.2 (owner) and Respondent No.3 (Insurance Company) of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to make the payment of compensation to the petitioners/claimants.
12. Relief Since the offending vehicle was duly insured, Respondent No.3/The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.6,57,920/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 06.02.2012 till realization with the Nazir of this Court within 30 days under intimation to the petitioner 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/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 in respect of deposit of this 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.
Suit No.346/14 -(Smt. Pinki vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.) 20 of 21 A copy of this judgement be sent to respondent No.3/ The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. for compliance within the time granted.
Nazir of this court 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 (A.K. Mendiratta) on 23rd March, 2015 Judge, MACT-1 (Central), Delhi Suit No.346/14 -(Smt. Pinki vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.) 21 of 21