KAVITA ARORA v. RAJEEV KUMAR & ORS

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) For order see MAC APPEAL No.404/2011 AUGUST 18, 2011 nandan INDERMEET KAUR, J. ~ -~ -.-! '~ 2011:DHC:15011 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date ofjudgment: 18.8.2011 MAC APPEAL No.404{2011 AND MAC APPEAL No. 435{2011 KAVITAARORA...........Appellant Through: Mr.Navneet Goyal, Advocate.

VERSUS

JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. These two appeals have impugned the Award dated 15.5.2011 whereby on the claim petition preferred by Kavita Arora, the widow of deceased Ramesh Arora and mother of minor Child Dev Arora; compensation in the sum of n[4],lL386{- had been awarded qua the death of her husband; a sum of ~5,90,000/- had been awarded qua the death of her minor child.

2. The grievance of the claimant qua the claim of her husband is two-fold; her contention is that although the salary of the victim had been computed correctly in terms of his income tax return for the year 2007-2008, yet the benefit of future prospects, cost rise as also price index inflation had not been given. 50% should have accorded on this count. For this submission reliance has been placed upon a judgment of Dalvinder Kaur Vs. United India Insurance Ltd. reported in IV(2010) ACC 365. In this case the deceased was aged 38 years; he was a building contractor; income tax return had been filed; a Bench of this Court placing reliance upon the judgment of R.KMalik Vs. Kiran Pal IV(2009) SLT 146 as also the judgment of Bahv Radhika Gupta Vs. Oriental Insurance Company reported in VIII(2009) SLT 642 had added 50% towards future prospects of the deceased and the income was computed accordingly. There is no reason as to why the ratio of this judgment should not be made applicable in this instant case also. The income tax return for the last two preceding years Le. for 2006-07 shows the gross income of the victim in the sum of ~L05,100/- and for the year 2007-08 showing his gross income in the sum of ~L12,181/- are a part of the trial court. The business of the victim was the sale-purchase of vehicles; the income tax MAC APPEAL No.404/2011 & 435/2011 Page 2 0[6 returns had showed an inflation in his income in the last two years. There was no reason to overlook the fact that in the following ten years the income of the victim would have doubled. SO% is liable to be added on this count.

3. The second grievance of the petitioner qua the claim of her husband is that the Tribunal had directed the Insurance Company to deposit the FDR in the Bank at Chandani Chowk which is unsuitable for the claimant because the claimant is a resident of Tilak Nagar; this direction be modified and the amount be directed to be deposited in a suitable bank at Tilak Nagar. This submission has force.

4. Keeping in view the aforenoted scenario the modified award in the case of Ramesh Arora shall accordingly read as under: ~L12,181 + ~S[6],091 (SO% of n,12,181) =1,68,271.S0 (rounded off to n,68,272) - ~S[6],091 (113 dependency) =n,12,181 x 17= n[9],07,077.

6. Total amount calculated is thus n[9],07,077 + ~lAO,OOO = ~20A[7],077 along with interest @ 7.S % per annum from the date MAC APPEAL NO.404/2011 & 435/2011 Page 3 of[6] of filing of the petition till the date of realization minus any amount received as an interim compensation is accordingly awarded. The impugned Award is also modified to the extent that instead of the amount being deposited in the Bank of Maharashtra, Chandani Chowk Branch the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount in the UCO Bank, Tilak Nagar Branch. The other directions contained in the Award will remain unmodified.

7. The appeal has also challenged the compensation awarded qua the death of the child Dev Arora. Contention is that the guidance has been taken from the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act (M.V.Act) which is applicable to claim petition under Section 163 A of the M.V.Act and not to the petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act; further contention is that the income of the child should have been taken as that of an unskilled worker. Last contention is that the amount directed to be deposited by the Insurance Company in the Chandani Chowk Branch is also unsuitable for the same reason that the claimant is residing at Tilak Nagar and the branch of the Bank at Chandani Chowk is not acce§sible to her.