UNREPORTED
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO NO. 518/1999
PRAMILA SACHDEVA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate.
versus
KULDIP SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for R-3.
% Date of Decision : MAY 06, 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?
O R D E R (ORAL)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated
12th August, 1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
awarding a sum of Rs.5,12,000/- alongwith interest thereon.
FAO No.518/1999 Page 1 of 7
2. The claim petition which resulted in the institution of the
present appeal related to the death of one Chetan Sachdeva
(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased), who was driving a two
wheeler scooter with one Sushil Kumar Puri, sitting on the pillion
seat. When the said scooter was on the National Highway near Mayur
Vihar Phase-2, it was hit by the offending truck, which was being
driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No.1. The
said truck, which was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with the
respondent No.3 had come from behind and hit the scooter. Both the
driver and the pillion rider succumbed to the injuries sustained by
them. The claim petition was filed by the father and the mother of the
deceased. The father of the deceased having died on 22.05.1993, his
name was deleted from the array of parties. The present appeal has
been filed by the mother of the deceased on the ground that the Claims
Tribunal has awarded a very meager amount by way of compensation
for the untimely demise of her son.
3. Mr. Navneet Goyal, the learned counsel for the appellant
assailed the award primarily on three counts:-
FAO No.518/1999 Page 2 of 7
(i) The Claims Tribunal should have applied
the multiplier of 14 instead of the
multiplier of 10 to the multiplicand
constituting the loss of dependency of the
appellant in view of the fact that the age
of the appellant on the date of the
accident was 43/44 years;
(ii) The Claims Tribunal erred in awarding
interest to the claimants only for a period
of three years i.e. with effect from 1.8.96
to 12.8.99, on the ground that the
petitioners took their own time to
complete their evidence which was
closed only on 3.2.99, while no delay at
all was caused by the appellant;
(iii) The Claims Tribunal, though it awarded
non-pecuniary damages for loss of love
and affection and for funeral expenses,
has not awarded any amount whatsoever
for loss of estate of the deceased
4. Mr. Pankaj Seth, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 –
Insurance Company sought to support the award on the ground
that a just and fair amount has been awarded to the appellant by
the Claims Tribunal and as such the award passed by the Claims
Tribunal called for no interference.
FAO No.518/1999 Page 3 of 7
5. Adverting to the first count on which the award was challenged
by Mr. Goyal viz. that the multiplier of 14 should have been
applied to the multiplicand constituting the annual loss of
dependency of the deceased, a bare glance at the second
Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 shows that for the
age group of victims between 40 and 45 years of age, the
appropriate multiplier is the multiplier of 15. In terms of the
guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt.
Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.
(2009) 6 SCC 121, however, which are meant for the guidance
of all Courts and Tribunal so as to ensure uniformity in the
dispensation of compensation to motor accident victims, the
multiplier of 14 is stated to be the appropriate multiplier for the
age-group of persons between 41 years to 45 years. The
multiplier of 14 is, thus, the appropriate multiplier in the present
case.
6. The grievance of the appellant on the second count, viz., that
there was no justification for the Claims Tribunal to grant
FAO No.518/1999 Page 4 of 7
interest only for a limited period of 3 years, also appears to be
justified. The records show that the appellant was not to blame
for the fact that a delay was caused in closing the evidence of
the petitioners. The appellant was regularly summoning her
witnesses on each and every date (except on one or two dates)
and their evidence was being recorded by the court. The delay
occurred primarily on account of administrative reasons, either
because the Presiding Officer was on leave or the connected file
was missing or because the police officials, who were to
produce the records from the VRK, did not care to turn up/
absented themselves despite service of summons and bailable
warrants on them. The appellant cannot be blamed for the said
delay and is accordingly held entitled to receive interest from
the date of the institution of the petition, i.e., from 11.10.91 till
the date of its disposal at the rate of interest awarded by the
Claims Tribunal i.e. 12% per annum.
7. As regards the third ground on which the award is sought to be
challenged, apparently, the Claims Tribunal, while awarding the
FAO No.518/1999 Page 5 of 7
non-pecuniary damages under other heads, lost sight of the fact
that the appellant was also entitled to non-pecuniary damages
for loss of the estate of her deceased son. The appellant is
accordingly awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate.
8. To conclude, the appellant is held entitled to receive
compensation of Rs. 6,30,000/- for loss of dependency (i.e. Rs
3,750 x 12 x 14). In addition, the appellant is held entitled to
receive a sum of Rs.15000/- towards loss of love and affection,
Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses as awarded by the
Tribunal and a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of the
estate of the deceased. The total amount of compensation, thus,
comes to Rs. 6,52,000/-.
9. The award is accordingly modified to the aforesaid extent.
Interest at the uniform rate of 12% per annum, as awarded by
the Tribunal, shall be payable from the date of institution of
petition till date of realization.
10. The amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal, if not already
paid, and the enhanced amount along with the interest thereon
FAO No.518/1999 Page 6 of 7
shall be deposited by way of a cheque drawn in favour of the
appellant with the Registrar General of this court by the
respondent No.3/Insurance Company within 30 days from
today.
11.The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
REVA KHETRAPAL
(JUDGE)
May 06, 2011
sk
FAO No.518/1999 Page 7 of 7