Full Text
Date of Decision: 16.10.2019
RAJ KUMAR & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. S.P. Verma, Advocate.
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
1. The learned counsel for the claimants submits that the deposit of the amount has not been made in terms of this Court’s order dated 16.10.2017, therefore, the appellant is in breach of the Court’s directions and the appeal ought to be dismissed on this ground alone. On 16.10.2017 the following order was passed: “The driver and owner respectively of the vehicle which was statedly involved in the accident giving rise to the cause of action in favour of the respondents leading to the filing of the accident claim case are in appeal to assail the finding asserting that the tractor bearing registration no. UP 14 B 2374 was not involved in that its particulars were wrongly noted by someone. The Tribunal's judgment shows that it was a claim case registered on the basis of detailed accident report (DAR) which 2019:DHC:5308 was submitted by the local police assumably on the basis of evidence collected during investigation. The counsel, on being asked to show the copy of the said DAR, does not give a clear reply. Issue notice to the respondents, on requisite steps, returnable before the Joint Registrar on 8th December, 2017, for completion of service and pleadings. Meanwhile, the appellants are directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with upto date interest with the Tribunal within thirty days, and upon such deposit being made, the Tribunal shall hold such amount in interest bearing fixed deposit receipt in a nationalised bank for a period of six months with a provision of auto renewal. For clarity, it is added that no amount shall be released from such deposit to the claimants till further directions from the Court. Tribunal's record shall be called for.”
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in dire financial straits and is unable to deposit the said amounts. The Court would note that no application has been filed in this regard, despite a lapse of almost 27 months. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant was mentally unsound when the case was being tried before the learned Tribunal, therefore, the case could not have proceeded without there being a person appointed by the Court to ensure the interest of the appellant. However, the learned counsel for the appellant is unable to show the Court any application filed either before this Court or before the learned Tribunal to the effect that the appellant was or ever recorded as a person of unsound mind or a person who was mentally not in control of his affairs. In the circumstances, this argument is untenable.
3. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. CM APPL. 22347/2018 (for delay of 96 days in filing cross objections)
4. This application seeks condonation of delay of 96 days in filing the cross objections. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay is condoned. The cross objections is taken on record.
5. The application stands disposed-off. CM APPL. 22543/2018 (cross objections on by r-1 to r-3)
6. Let the cross-objections be registered as a separate MAC appeal.
7. Issue notice. The learned counsel named above accepts notice on behalf of the non-applicants. At joint request, the cross-objection is taken up for disposal.
8. The claimants seek enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned MACT by order dated 27.07.2017 in DAR NO. 222/2017 on the ground that the deceased being thirty years old at the time of the motor accident, multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied in terms of the schedule laid down in the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and not the multiplier of 5, which was considered on the basis of the age of the parents.
9. The aforesaid contention is valid. Accordingly, the computation shall be calculated by applying the multiplier of 17. Furthermore, the claimants are entitled to compensation towards ‘loss of future prospects’ @ 40% in terms of the dicta of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680. It is so granted.
10. The learned counsel for the claimants also contends that in terms of the decision of Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546, compensation towards ‘loss of love and affection’ and ‘loss of consortium’ would be payable to each of the claimants @ Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 40,000/-, respectively. It is so granted. The award of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation towards ‘loss of love and affection’ by the learned Tribunal shall be adjusted in the final compensation.
11. The Court would note that compensation towards ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ has been granted @ Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 25,000/respectively; the same should be Rs. 15,000/- under each of the two heads in terms of Pranay Sethi(Supra).
12. Accordingly, the total amount payable to the claimants is as under: S.No. Particulars Amount
1. Loss of Dependency [Rs. 13,350/- (minimum wage) x 12 (months) x 17 (multiplier) x 140/100 (loss of future prospects) x 50/100 (50% deduction towards personal expenses)] Rs. 19,06,380/-
2. Loss of ‘love and affection’ [Rs. 50,000/- x 2 (claimants)] Rs. 1,00,000
3. Loss of consortium [Rs. 40,000/- x 2 (claimants)] Rs. 80,000/-
4. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
5. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- TOTAL Rs. 21,16,380/-
13. Let the aforesaid amounts, alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, be deposited before the learned Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order to be released to the beneficiary(ies) of the award in terms of the scheme of disbursement specified therein.
14. The cross objections is disposed-off in the above terms.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. OCTOBER16, 2019 AB