Government of NCT of Delhi v. Urmila Devi

1. As this batch of appeals arises from a common order passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch ofwrit petitions filed by the nextofkin ofthe deceased, they are being disposed by this common order. Present batch of appeals arises out of similar unfortunate circumstances involving hapless victims, falling in unfenced, unprotected, uncovered and unguarded ganda nala / manhole and succumbing to their deaths. Learned single judge has considered the facts of all the individual:writ.petitions, and, while disposing offthe writpetitions vide a comnion order dated 3"'November,2016,seen fit to award compensation to the claimants/hekt6^^^ deceased.

2. The batch of four appealsr bemg/:,LP^ Nos. 124/2017, 125/2017, 127/2017 and 145/2017 have been'fried by.the Government ofNCT ofDelhi challenging the order passed by thpTeaifre^^^^ Judge on November 03, 2016 wherebythelearned SinglfrJufrg^ii^ the writpetitionsfiled by the respondents herein and granted cbrhpensation to the respondents herein of varying amounts for the unfortunate deaths of the respective victims, who died after falling in ganda naald/'jriddfiole^-

3. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant(in the aforesaid appeals preferred by the state)respondent is that the appellants cannot be held responsible for the death ofthe deceased persons as it is the case ofthe appellants that there are disputed question offact, which require determination through oral evidence and could not have been gone into by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. LPA 124/2017and connected matter Page3of10

4. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the age ofthe victims and the minimum wage applicable atthattime,based on aformula,as noted by her in different judgments of the Supreme Court has granted the compensation.

5. The only plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant does not impress us as it cannot be disputed thatthe deceased have died after they fell in the ganda naala/manhole which was slippery due to the negligent act of the appellant. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

6. Insofar as the appeals filed by the uppellahts(being Next ofkin ofthe deceased) being LPA Nos. 437/2047^ 8/2017, 451/2017, 483/2017 and 790/2017, who were the petitidhers'befDfe:%^ Single Judge, are concerned, the same have been/preferredSonly to the extent of seeking enhancement of compensation so awarded: 'These appeals have challenged the order ofthe learned Single Judge on the ground that the compensation awarded is less/on a lower sidei-jTeajme^ for the appellants in these appeals has relied upon a judgnieriitefide|ed'',by us in the case of Rajeev Singhal & Anr. Vs. MCD (East/lMiiiiftinicipal Corp.)& Anr. LPA 379/2017, wherein this Court has, after referring to the various judgments culled out a formula for computationjoTcopape^^ The relevant paras of thejudgment are reproduced as under:-

23. Finally, with regard to quantification ofthe compensation, we may take note ofthe principles laid down in the case of Kamla Devi(supra). According to the aforesaidjudgmentand the principles that can be culled out on the complete reading ofthe law laid down in the case ofKamla Devi (supra), we find that the courts have evolved a two-tier mechanism for assessment ofcompensation. The mechanism and theformula laid down have two components. Thefirst is the conventional LPA 124/2017andconnected matter Page4of10 sum or the standard compensation and the second is the pecuniary compensation.

XXX XXX XXX

28. We find that in the present case both the appellants herein, namely, thefather and the mother are earning. Asper income tax returns ofthe appellants which are available on record, the average annual income of the appellant No.l (father) based on the income tax returns for the three assessment years 2010-2011 to 2012-2013 indicates that his annual average income would come to Rs[2],22,741.66. Similarly, based on the assessment ofthe income tax returns ofthe aforesaid three assessment years,, the annual average income of the appellant'No.2f(mdther) would come to Rs.2,03,471.66. It has been held in boM these cases that the annual income ofthe parents can be:taken into consideration for assessing the annual income dfafhild. Ifthat be so, we find that the total anmqfiipcpme::)^^ parents comes to Rs.4,26,213.32 and if tins,if diyid^ we can safely conclude that the armudmcpinf ^ child can be assessed at Rs.2,13,106.66. As per'theformula laid downfor calculating the pecuniaryrloss, a multiplier of 15 can be applied, consideringihefacfthqt thcyictim was 14 years of age.In the case ofVariiiderPrdsad(siipra), it was noted that as the deceased "would have grown up, hispersonal expenses would have only risen. The contribution to the household would nothave exceeded halfofthe income."Accordingly, the total annual income ofthe victim, as indicated hereinabove, i.e. Rs.2,13,106.66, has to be divided by 2 to arrive at the same and thereafter it has to be multiplied with a factor namely 1.[5] to counter inflation and erosion ofthe value df money and by multiplying it with 15 in terms ofthe multiplier LPA 124/2017andconnected matter Page5of10 provided in thesecondschedide ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, the pecuniary compensation worlcs outto Rs.23,97,449.92.

29. Asfar as the standard compensation is concerned, it has to he assessed by taking the average CPI(IW) with base year

1982. In the year 1989 as per Kamla Devi's case, the Index was 171 and according to the Labour Bureau, Government of India's Notification ofJuly, 2014, the CPI(IW) with the base year 2001 for the year 2014 is 252 and the linldngfactor based on the generalIndexfor the particular year would be

4.63. Therefore, the CPI(IW)as in July 2014 would be 252 x

4.63 i.e. 1166.76 and applying theformulafor calculation of standardcompensation, it wouldbe: Rs.50,000x 1166.76/171-RsB,4-1,0:89."

1. The two components of total compensation are to be quantified as follows:;7'

1. Pccnniarv Compensation:: A Notionalaverage annualincome ofdeceased (Ofthe deceased,oroftheparent,ifminor) B Deduction (Byafactor;on accountofdecreasingcontribution to faniily income) C Midtiplier Factor (In terms ofjudgementofSupreme Courtin National. Indsurdnc&Co. VsPfxmaySethi,(2017)16SCC 680) D Multiplier to counter inflationary aspects L?A 124/2017and connected matter Page 6of10 Formula: ((A-B)XCXD)