Full Text
MAC.APP.No.25/2007
Date of Decision: 3rd March, 2010 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Adv.
Through : Mr. Navneet Goyal and Mr. Varun Kumar, Advs. for
R-1 to 4.
Mr. Divjeet Singh Vohra, Adv. for R-5 and 6.
JUDGMENT
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may YES be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.12,55,000/- has been awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 to 4. The appellant is seeking reduction of the award amount. Claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 have filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of the award amount.
2. The accident dated 2nd October, 2005 resulted in the death of Pawan Kumar Yadav. The deceased was aged 23 years at the time of the accident and was carrying on the business of transporter in the name of Yadav Tempo Service. 2010:DHC:1268 The deceased left behind four legal representatives, namely, widow, minor son and parents who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.
3. The father of the deceased appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that the deceased was a transporter by profession and was running transport business in the name of Yadav Tempo Service earning Rs.12,000/- to Rs.14,000/per month. The copy of the passbook of the deceased with State Bank of India was proved as Ex.PW1/1 according to which, the total deposits between 28th August, 2004 to 20th May, 2005 were Rs.76,000/-. There were eight withdrawals of Rs.7,635/- at regular intervals. According to PW-1, Rs.7,635/- was being paid as EMI to the bank by the deceased towards the vehicle owned by him. On the basis of the said withdrawals, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.6,000/- per month considering that the taxable limit in 2005-06 was Rs.1,00,000/-. The learned Tribunal added 50% towards the future prospects, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 17 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs.12,25,000/-. Rs.10,000/- has been awarded towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation awarded is Rs.12,55,000/-.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged the following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-
(i) The income of the deceased be taken according to the minimum wages.
(ii) The future prospects should not be taken into consideration for computation of compensation.
5. The learned counsel for claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 have urged the following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-
(i) The income of the deceased be taken to be
(ii) The personal expenses of the deceased be reduced from 1/3rd to 1/4th.
(iii) The multiplier be enhanced from 17 to 18.
(iv) The compensation be awarded for loss of estate.
6. With respect to the income of the deceased, the claimants have proved that the deceased was paying EMI of Rs.7,635/- to the bank towards the loan taken for the vehicle and, therefore, the income of the deceased has to be more than that. The claimants have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- to Rs.14,000/- per month. However, since the deceased was not paying any Income Tax, the income of the deceased ought to have been taken at Rs.1,00,000/- per annum which was the upper taxable limit at that time. The income of the deceased is, therefore, taken to be Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal has added 50% towards future prospects. The present case does not warrant the future prospects to be taken into consideration in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) Scale 129. The learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses. However, the appropriate deduction in the present case is 1/4th as the deceased has left behind four legal representatives. The personal expenses of the deceased are, therefore, reduced from 1/3rd to 1/4th. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 17 whereas the appropriate multiplier at the age of 23 years is 18. The multiplier is, therefore, enhanced from 17 to 18. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards the loss of estate. Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate.
7. Taking the income of the deceased as Rs.1,00,000/- per annum, deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of dependency is computed to be Rs.13,50,000/- (Rs.1,00,000 x 3/4 x 18). Adding Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, the total compensation is computed to be Rs.13,90,000/- (Rs.13,50,000 + Rs.10,000 + Rs.10,000 + Rs.10,000 + Rs.10,000).
8. The appeal is dismissed. The cross-objections are allowed and the award amount is enhanced from Rs.12,55,000/- to Rs.13,90,000/- along with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of notice of deposit under Order 21 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
9. The enhanced award amount along with interest be deposited by the appellant with UCO Bank A/c Sumita, Delhi High Court Branch through Mr. M.M. Tandon, Member-Retail Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi (Mobile No. 09310356400) within 30 days.
10. Upon the aforesaid deposit being made, UCO Bank is directed to keep a sum of Rs.50,000/- in fixed deposit in the name of Chirag till he attains majority on which monthly interest be paid to respondent No.1.
11. The remaining enhanced amount be released to respondents No.1, 3 and 4 in equal shares by transferring the same to their respective Savings Bank Account.
12. The name of respondent No.1 in para ‘2’ of the order dated 30th November, 2009 is corrected and be read as ‘Sumita’ instead of ‘Sunita’.
13. Since the appeal has been disposed of, FDRs in terms of the order dated 30th November, 2009 shall be handed over to the claimants/respondents on the maturity.
14. Copy of this order be given ‘Dasti’ to learned counsel for both the parties under signature of Court Master. J.R. MIDHA, J MARCH 03, 2010