Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 26th November, 2024
RISHI PAL .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate.
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for R1.
Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
1. An Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 („M.V.Act‟ hereinafter) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/ Claimants against the Award dated 24.09.2016, to seek enhancement of the compensation granted in the sum of Rs.10,45,700/- with interest @9%, by the learned Tribunal.
2. It is submitted that Mr. Sonu, son of the Appellant, died on 21.08.2012. The enhancement of the compensation is sought on the following grounds:-
(i) that the deceased was 20-year-old and was a student of ITI. His
(ii) that 1/3rd deduction has been made instead of ½, towards personal and living expenses, despite the deceased being unmarried and the father being the only dependent upon the deceased.
(iii) the compensation under the non-pecuniary heads is also on the lower side.
3. Learned counsel on behalf of the Appellant, has placed reliance on MAC.APP. 623/2019, titled „Indrawati & Anr. Vs. Ranbir Singh & Ors.‟, decided on 08.01.2021; Keith Rowe vs. Prashant Sagar, 2011 ACJ 1734; Vijaya Manohar Arbat vs. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai, (1987) 2 SCC 278; Mahendrakuamr Ramrao Gaikwad vs. Gulabbai Ramrao Gaikwad, 2001 CriLJ 2111; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130; United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur, SLP (C.) No. 28548/2014, decided on 30.06.2020; New India Assurance Company vs. Somwati, (2020) 9 SCC 644; Dinesh Adhlak vs. Pritam Singh, ILR (2010) 5 Del 463.
4. Learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company has contended that the income of the deceased has been rightly calculated by the learned Tribunal. In fact, the deceased was survived only by his father as his mother had pre-deceased him. The father has two married children who have been categorically found to be not financially dependent upon the deceased. No Loss of Estate should have been granted and the deduction has been rightly made of 2/3rd. Furthermore, Future Prospects have been granted at 50%, which should be reduced to 40%. Moreover, Loss of Love and Affection has also been granted on the higher side.
5. Learned counsel on behalf of the Appellant, in Rejoinder, has argued that there can be no reduction in the Compensation amount as no Cross- Petition has been filed on behalf of the Insurance Company.
6. Submissions heard.
7. Briefly stated, the Respondent No. 2/Driver was driving at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner, came from the wrong side of the road and hit the motorcycle on which Sonu was travelling as a pillion rider, who died on account of the injuries suffered in the accident. An FIR NO. 268/2012 was registered u/s 279/337 Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟ hereinafter) at P.S. Khajuri Khas. The vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company/Respondent No. 1.
8. The Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was filed for Compensation by the Appellant herein, who is the father of the deceased. Loss of Dependency/Loss to the Estate of the deceased: - Income of the Deceased: -
9. The first ground agitated by the Appellant to seek enhancement of the Award is that the deceased was 20-year-old and was a student of ITI and yet his Minimum Wages have been taken as that of a Matriculate i.e. Rs. 8525/when it should have been taken as Rs.15,000/-.
10. In the impugned Award, the Ld. Tribunal had observed that Sh. Rishi Pal, father of deceased, in his Affidavit PW 1/A stated that the deceased was a student of CRPF Industrial Training Centre and was engaged in a parttime job earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, but no documentary proof was placed to prove his income. He proved the Sr. School Certificate Examination 2011 Ex. PW1/3 and Marksheet of Senior School Certificate Examination 2011 Ex. PW1/4 and ID Card of CRPF ITI PW1/2.
11. The ID card may reflect that the deceased was a student at ITI a vocational Institute, but there was no basis on which his Income could be taken as Rs. 15,000/- p.m. as claimed. No proof whatsoever, of the deceased working part-time or earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. was produced. Aside from bald assertions, there is no proof of potential income of the deceased. The Income of the deceased as per Minimum Wages prescribed for a Matriculate as Rs. 8,525/- per month, has been correctly taken by the learned Tribunal. Future Prospects: -
12. Further, the contention of the Respondent/ Insurance Company to seek reduction of the amount awarded on account of Future Prospects from 50% to 40% or for reduction in the amount granted for love and affection, has no merit, since no Application or Cross Appeal has been filed by the Respondent. The same warrants no interreference. Deduction towards Personal Expenses: -
13. The Second ground agitated by the Appellant to seek enhancement of the Award is that the Ld. Tribunal erred in taking 1/3rd of amount towards personal expenses while calculating the Loss of Estate, when it should have been taken as 1/2.
14. In the recent judgment of Francis Edwin v. Omana PK and Ors. Civ. Appl. 8964/2012 decided on 12.08.2016, the Apex court upheld the judgement of Kerala High Court, wherein the Court highlighted the distinction between “Loss to the Estate of the deceased” and “Loss of Estate” and held that the Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got less deductions if any, that could be made under law is the loss to the estate of the deceased. That goes to the legal heirs of the deceased. However, the Loss of Estate includes compensation for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of amenities, etc. of the deceased. That amount goes to the legal heirs by virtue of Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act.
15. In the present case, though the Ld. Tribunal in the Impugned Award has used the term has been used as „Loss of Estate‟ by observing that the petitioner was unmarried, and the Father of the deceased had deposed that he was doing the work of selling milk and earning Rs. 3,000- 4,000/- per month. Thus, being an able-bodied person, the father of the deceased was not considered to be dependent upon the deceased.
16. Thus, the father was actually granted the Loss to the Estate of the deceased.
17. The Ld. Tribunal while referring to Keith Rowe v. Prashant Sagar & Ors.
MAC APP No. 601/2007, observed that the quantum of savings for loss of Estate can be taken as 1/3rd of the income of the deceased where the spouses are having common establishment and 1/4th where the spouses are having independent establishments, which shall also apply where the family consists of non-dependent spouse/children/parents.
18. Consequently, it was held that the petitioner/father was entitled to 1/3rd of the amount on account of loss of estate and calculated the same as Rs. 9,20,700/-.
19. The same has been rightly granted and does not warrant any interference. Non-Pecuniary Heads: -
20. Learned counsel on behalf of the Appellant has also asserted that the compensation granted under the Non-Pecuniary Heads, is also required to be enhanced. The Ld. Tribunal has rightly granted Rs. 1,00,000/- towards Loss of Love and Affection and Rs. 25,000/-Funeral expenses and the same requires no modification. Relief: -
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no modification granted in the compensation amount awarded under the impugned Award dated 24.09.2016.
22. The Appeal is hereby dismissed.
JUDGE NOVEMBER 26, 2024