National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sushila & Ors.

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) CM No.10386/2009

1. For the reasons stated in the application and also noting that the claimants have good case on merits and the appeal is still pending, the delay in filing and refiling of the cross-objections is condone.

2. CM stands disposed of. MAC.APP. 209/2006 and Cross-Objections

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.14,86,868/- has been awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 to 8. The appellant 2009:DHC:5455 Claimants/respondents No.1 to 8 have filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of the award amount.

2. The accident dated 6th January, 2000 resulted in the death of Tek Ram. The deceased was survived by his widow, four daughters, two sons and mother who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.

3. The deceased was aged 34 years at the time of the accident and was working as a driver with MCD at a salary of Rs.7,117/- per month. The learned Tribunal took the future prospects into consideration and deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 17 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs.14,51,868/-. Rs.10,000/- has been awarded towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/towards loss of expectancy of life and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation awarded is Rs.14,86,868/-.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged at the time of hearing of this appeal that the appropriate multiplier according to the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) Scale 129 at the age of 34 years is 16 and, therefore, the multiplier be reduced from 17 to 16.

5. The learned counsel for claimants/respondents No.1 to 8 on the other hand submit that the personal expenses of the deceased be reduced from 1/3rd to 1/5th as the deceased has left behind eight legal representatives.

6. According to the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the appropriate multiplier at the age of 34 years is 16 and appropriate deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased who has left behind more than six legal representatives is 1/5th.

7. Following the aforesaid judgment, the multiplier is reduced from 17 to 16 and personal expenses of the deceased are reduced from 1/3rd to 1/5th.

8. The learned counsel for the claimants submit that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for loss of estate. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for loss of expectancy of life of the deceased which is not a permissible head under law. The compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded for loss of expectancy of life shall be treated to be towards loss of estate.

9. Taking the annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,28,106/-, deducting 1/5th towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 16, the loss of dependency is computed to be Rs.16,39,756/- (Rs.1,28,106 x 16 x 4/5).

10. Adding Rs.35,000/- towards the non-pecuniary damages awarded by the learned Tribunal, the total compensation is computed to be Rs.16,74,756/- (Rs.16,39,756 + Rs.35,000).