UNREPORTED
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 412/2000
SMT. PARWATI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. R.K. Tripathi, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
% Date of Decision : May 16, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
ORDER (ORAL)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
1. By way of this appeal, the appellant seeks enhancement of the
award dated 31st August, 2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, whereunder the appellant was held entitled to an amount of
Rs.59,600/-, with interest thereon, against the respondents for the
FAO 412/2000 Page 1 of 7
untimely demise of her daughter in a motor vehicular accident, which
took place on 19th December, 1985.
2. The undisputed facts in the present case are that the deceased
was aged 18 years and was unmarried on the date of the motor
accident. The appellant-Smt. Parwati, being the mother of the
deceased, is her only legal heir as her father had already expired
before the said accident. The appellant, who appeared in the witness
box as PW5, deposed that the deceased was doing various house jobs
for the family which was residing at C-II/32, Moti Bagh, New Delhi
and in lieu of her services, they had given her a servant quarter. She
further deposed that the services rendered by the deceased were of the
value of Rs.1,000/- per month. This is the evidence given by the
appellant regarding income of the deceased. The Claims Tribunal,
after noting that in her evidence the appellant had given the value of
the services rendered by the deceased to their household as Rs.1,000/-
per month, further noted that in the petition the appellant had given
the value of the services of her daughter to be Rs.800/- per month.
The Tribunal also noted that the appellant had pleaded in paragraph 2
of the petition that had the deceased been alive, she would have given
FAO 412/2000 Page 2 of 7
at least a sum of Rs.600/- per month to her. The Tribunal,
accordingly, computed the annual income of the deceased to be in the
sum of Rs.9,600/- per annum, i.e., Rs.800X12. From the aforesaid
income of the deceased, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards the
living expenses of the deceased, and thus ascertained the dependency
of the appellant on the deceased to be in the sum of Rs.6,400/- per
annum. To the aforesaid multiplicand, the Tribunal applied the
multiplier of 9, thereby calculating the compensation for loss of
dependency awardable to the appellant to be in the sum of
Rs.57,600/-. In addition to the said sum, the Tribunal also awarded a
sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased.
3. Mr. Navneet Goel, the learned counsel for the Appellant has
assailed the aforesaid computation of compensation awarded to the
appellant by the Claims Tribunal by making a four-fold submission:
(i) The Claims Tribunal could not have deducted
1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards her living
expenses in view of the fact that once the value of the
services rendered by deceased to the household is
taken, there cannot be any further deduction.
FAO 412/2000 Page 3 of 7
(ii) The appropriate multiplier in the instant case
should have been the multiplier of 14 instead of the
multiplier of 9 as adopted by the Claims Tribunal.
(iii) The Claims Tribunal erred in awarding nothing to
the claimant towards the loss of love and affection of
her daughter and the loss of estate of the deceased.
(iv) No cogent reason was assigned by the Tribunal
for not awarding any interest for the period intervening
6th September, 1988 to 26th September, 1994.
4. Respondents No. 1 and 2 contested the claim petition by filing
counter affidavit wherein the respondents sought to support the
award.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the Appellant, this Court
is inclined to agree with all the four submissions put forth by him for
enhancement of the award amount. As regards the first submission, it
is evident from the record that what the Claims Tribunal took into
account for the purpose of computation of loss of dependency of the
appellant was the value of services rendered by the deceased.
Indubitably, once the value of services is taken, there cannot be any
FAO 412/2000 Page 4 of 7
further deduction towards personal expenses. As regards the
multiplier adopted by the Claims Tribunal, the appellant who was the
mother of the deceased was 41 years of age at the time of the accident
and for the age group of victims between 41 years and 45 years of
age, the appropriate multiplier in consonance with the judgment of
the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and
Ors. V. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. AIR 2009 SC 3104,
is the multiplier of 14. The submission of learned counsel for the
appellant that the appellant was also entitled to general damages for
the loss of love and affection and loss of the estate of the deceased is
also well-founded, for, it is settled law that in a death case non-
pecuniary damages under the aforesaid heads are liable to be awarded
to the legal representatives of the deceased. Finally, on the aspect of
interest, I find no cogent reason as to why interest for the period
intervening 6th September, 1988 and 26th September, 1994 was not
awarded to the appellant, in as much as there does not appear to have
been any deliberate delay on the part of the appellant in adducing her
evidence. Even otherwise, it is settled law that interest is awarded for
the forbearance and detention of the principal amount and is liable to
FAO 412/2000 Page 5 of 7
be awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition for
compensation till the date of the realisation of the award amount.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the compensation payable to the
appellant must be re-computed in accordance with the evidence on
record and the settled legal position. Assuming the value of the
services rendered by the deceased to be in the sum of Rs.9,600/- per
annum and applying the multiplier of 14 thereto, the total loss of
dependency of the appellant works out to Rs.1,34,400/-. Adding non-
pecuniary damages of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection
and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of the estate of the deceased and the sum
of Rs.2,000/- awarded by the tribunal for the funeral expenses of the
deceased, the total compensation payable to the appellant works out
to Rs.1,51,400/- which may be rounded off to Rs.1,51,000/-.
7. The appellant is, accordingly, held entitled to receive a sum of
Rs.1,51,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum as awarded by the
Claims Tribunal from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 12th March,
1986 till the date of realisation, including the period between 6th
September, 1988 and 26th September, 1994. The enhanced amount of
compensation shall be paid to the appellant by the Respondents
FAO 412/2000 Page 6 of 7
within 30 days of the receipt of this order, by depositing the same in
this Court.
8. The appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the Respondents by the Registry
forthwith.
REVA KHETRAPAL
(JUDGE)
May 16, 2011
‘raj’
FAO 412/2000 Page 7 of 7