* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ F.A.O. No.136 of 1991
% 26.04.2010
SAVITRI DEVI & ORS. ...... Appellants
Through: Mr. Varun Kumar & Mr. Navneet Goyal,
Advocates.
Versus
RAM KISHAN & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Salil Paul, Advocate for R-3 and 6.
Reserved on: 6th April, 2010
Pronounced on: 26th April, 2010
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
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?
JUDGMENT
1. By present appeal, the appellants who are legal heirs of the deceased have assailed
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and have prayed for enhancement
of compensation.
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that deceased Jai
Ram Subhani aged around 28 years died in an accident on 23rd October, 1983. At the
time of accident, he was unmarried and was a partner of M/s. Relu Ram Sons, Katra
Rathi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The compensation claim was filed under Section 110 A of
Motor Vehicle Act by Smt. Savitri Devi, mother of the deceased and brothers and sisters
of the deceased. It is undisputed fact that all brothers and sisters of the deceased were
major and were independently working. The leaned Tribunal in the award observed that
F.A.O. No.136/1991 Page No.1 of 3
since nothing has come on record to establish that other legal heirs were dependent on the
deceased, he, therefore, considered that except mother none else was a necessary party to
the proceedings. While determining the compensation, the learned Tribunal considered
the income of the deceased on the basis of income-tax returns being filed by the firm.
The deceased was a partner in the firm to the extent of 30 per cent and on the basis of
income-tax returns, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the income of the deceased
was Rs.9,000/- to Rs.11,000/- per annum. The Tribunal therefore, took the dependency
of the petitioner, that is, mother at Rs.500/- per month. The age of mother of the
deceased on the date of her examination was around 58 years. The Tribunal considered
that a multiplier of 15 should be applied. The Tribunal, therefore, awarded a
compensation of Rs.90,000/- (Rs.500 x 12 x 15) and considered it just and reasonable.
The Tribunal awarded interest @ 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing of petition
till the order and 12 per cent from the date of order till realization.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal had wrongly
considered the dependency of mother at Rs.500/- per month. The Tribunal ignored the
testimony of mother who stated that deceased was paying Rs.1,000/- per month to her. It
is further stated that the Tribunal did not take into account future prospects. Since the
deceased was partner of the firm, future prospects upto 50 per cent of his income should
have been added. It is also submitted that the Tribunal did not grant any compensation on
behalf of estate, love, affection, etc.
4. I consider while considering the compensation claim, the best evidence regarding
income of deceased are the income-tax returns filed by the deceased since income-tax
returns are an admission of the income of the deceased made when there was no inkling
of any misfortune happening. A bald statement made by a witness about the income
F.A.O. No.136/1991 Page No.2 of 3
cannot be considered as basis for computing compensation when the income-tax returns
filed by the deceased are on record.
5. I, therefore, find that the Tribunal rightly took into account the income-tax returns
as the basis of income. The Tribunal had taken dependency of Rs.500/- for the mother.
The income of the deceased was Rs.1,000/- per month on an average. Since the deceased
was unmarried, 50 per cent was rightly considered as the amount being spent by the
deceased on himself. So, the Tribunal rightly considered as Rs.500/- the amount of
dependency of the mother. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 in this case. The
mother of the deceased was aged around 51 years and the age of the deceased was 28
years. The multiplier approved by the Supreme Court in Sarla Varma’s case is 17
however, since the deceased was unmarried and mother of the deceased was quite old and
the father had already died these factors were to be kept in mind. I, therefore, consider
that the Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier of 15 in this case. As far as future
prospects are concerned, since the deceased was a partner in a partnership firm, there are
possibilities of ups and downs of the business, the Tribunal, therefore, rightly did not
consider future prospects as the future prospects in business can be bright and bleak both.
The definite future prospects are there only in case of service persons who receive regular
increment and periodical wage revision or promotion.
6. I, therefore, find that the amount awarded by the Tribunal in this case was as per
law. I find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
APRIL 26, 2010
‘AA’
F.A.O. No.136/1991 Page No.3 of 3