28
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No.127/2000
Date of Decision: 18th January, 2010
%
UOI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through : Mr. A.S. Dateer, Adv.
versus
SUDESH RANI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Sanjeev Saxena, Adv.
for R-1 & 2.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may YES
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be YES
reported in the Digest?
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The appellants have challenged the award of the
learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.1,44,000/- has
been awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 and 2. The
appellants seek reduction of the award amount on the
ground of composite negligence. Claimants/respondents
No.1 and 2 have filed cross-objections seeking enhancement
of the award amount.
2. The accident dated 15th February, 1991 resulted in the
death of Ram Murti. The deceased was survived by his widow
and minor daughter who filed the claim petition before the
learned Tribunal.
FAO No.127/2000 Page 1 of 6
3. The deceased was aged 39 years at the time of the
accident and was running a Kiryana shop earning Rs.4,000/-
per month. However, in the absence of sufficient proof of
income, the learned Tribunal took the minimum wages of
Rs.1,222/- per month. The learned Tribunal took the future
prospects into consideration by taking the average of
Rs.1,222/- and Rs.2,500/-, deducted Rs.550/- towards the
personal expenses of the deceased and applied the multiplier
of 10 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs.1,44,000/-.
No compensation has been awarded for loss of consortium,
loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral
expenses.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants has urged only
one ground at the time of hearing of this appeal, namely,
that the compensation amount be reduced on the ground of
composite negligence of the scooter on which the deceased
was sitting as pillion rider. The deceased was sitting on the
pillion of two wheeler scooter which was hit by truck bearing
No.DIG-551. The FIR was registered against the driver of the
truck. The driver of the scooter appeared in the witness box
before the learned Tribunal and deposed that the truck came
on the wrong side of the road and hit the scooter. The FIR of
the case was proved as Ex.PW2/A. On the basis of aforesaid
evidence, the learned Tribunal held that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant’s
driver. The finding of the learned Tribunal is based on the
FAO No.127/2000 Page 2 of 6
evidence on record and is upheld.
5. The learned counsel for claimants/respondents No.1
and 2 has urged the following grounds at the time of hearing
of this appeal:-
(i) The multiplier be enhanced from 10 to 15.
(ii) The compensation be awarded for loss of
consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of
estate and funeral expenses.
6. The learned counsel for claimants/respondents No.1
and 2 submits that the deceased was 39 years of age but the
learned Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 50 years on
the basis of the age recorded in the postmortem report. The
learned counsel submits that the age of the deceased
recorded in the postmortem report is not the correct age of
the deceased.
7. The claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 have led
additional evidence before this Court. The deceased had
studied in Sarkari High School, Pindwarpal, Amritsar, Punjab
and appellant No.1 applied for the copy of the admission
register of the school under the Right to Information Act in
response to which the reply dated 11th September, 2009 was
sent to appellant No.1 and the copy of the admission register
was also furnished to her. Appellant No.1 appeared in the
witness box and proved the original reply dated 11 th
September, 2009 as Ex.P-1. The certified copy of the
admission register received by appellant No.1 under the
FAO No.127/2000 Page 3 of 6
cover of the letter dated 11th September, 2009 was proved
as Ex.P-2. The true translation of Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 were
proved as Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4. As per Ex.P-2, the date of birth
of the deceased is 3rd February, 1952 and according to which
the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 39
years. The age of the deceased is, therefore, held to be 39
years.
8. As per the recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation, 2009 (6) Scale 129, the appropriate
multiplier at the age of 39 years is 15. The multiplier is,
therefore, enhanced form 10 to 15.
9. Taking the monthly dependency of the claimant to be
Rs.1,200/- per month, applying the multiplier of 15, the loss
of dependency is computed to be Rs.2,16,000/- (Rs.1,200 x
12 x 15).
10. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any
compensation for loss of consortium, loss of love and
affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Rs.10,000/- is
awarded for loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- for loss of love
and affection, Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for
funeral expenses. The total compensation is computed to be
Rs.2,51,000/- (Rs.2,16,000 + Rs.10,000 + Rs.10,000 +
Rs.10,000 + Rs.5,000).
11. The appeal is dismissed. The cross-objections are
allowed and the award amount is enhanced from
FAO No.127/2000 Page 4 of 6
Rs.1,44,000/- to Rs.2,51,000/- . The learned Tribunal has
awarded interest @ 12% per annum which is not disturbed
on the original award amount of Rs.1,44,000/-. However, on
the enhanced award amount, the rate of interest shall be
@7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till
realization.
12. The enhanced award amount along with interest be
deposited by the appellant with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
Branch A/c Sudesh Rani through Mr. M.M. Tandon, Member-
Retail Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi
(Mobile No. 09310356400) within 30 days.
13. Upon the aforesaid deposit being made, the UCO Bank
is directed to keep a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in fixed deposit
with cumulative interest as per the details given hereunder:-
(i) Fixed deposit Receipt for Rs.25,000/- in the name
of respondent No.2 for a period of six months.
(ii) Fixed deposit Receipt for Rs.25,000/- in the name
of respondent No.2 for a period of one year.
(iii) Fixed deposit Receipt for Rs.25,000/- in the name
of respondent No.1 for a period of six months.
(iv) Fixed deposit Receipt for Rs.25,000/- in the name
of respondent No.1 for a period of one year.
(v) Fixed deposit Receipt for Rs.25,000/- in the name
of respondent No.1 for a period of one and a half
years.
(vi) Fixed deposit Receipt for Rs.25,000/- in the name
FAO No.127/2000 Page 5 of 6
of respondent No.1 for a period of two years.
(vii) Fixed deposit Receipt for Rs.25,000/- in the name
of respondent No.1 for a period of two and a half
years.
(viii) Fixed deposit Receipt for Rs.25,000/- in the name
of respondent No.1 for a period of three years.
14. The remaining amount be released to
claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 by transferring the said
amount to their Saving Bank Accounts. The FDRS be also
released to respondents No.1 and 2 with an endorsement
that no loan or advance be given on the said FDRs without
the permission of this Court.
15. List for reporting compliance on 18th February, 2010.
J.R. MIDHA, J
JANUARY 18, 2010
mk
FAO No.127/2000 Page 6 of 6