RAVINDER KAUR & Ors. v. UOI & Ors.

Through: Mr. Saqib, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL J U D G M E N T G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of ‘4,83,000/- awarded for the death of Manjit Singh, who died in a motor accident which occurred on 12.08.1995

Deceased Manjit Singh was working as Air Craft Technician in the Indian Airlines. As per the copy of the Salary Certificate placed on record during enquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) it was proved that the deceased was getting a salary of ‘ 5792/- per month. He suffered fatal injuries while he was returning to his home on a two wheeler No.DDN 7409, he was struck by a Army vehicle No. 89D77888M which was driven by the Fourth Respondent and owned by the First and the Second Respondent. MAC APP 50/2004

On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by the Fourth Respondent. The Claims Tribunal took the deceased’s income to be ‘4500/- per month; deducted one-third towards the personal and living expenses; applied the multiplier of ‘13’ to compute the loss of financial dependency as ‘4,68,000/-. A sum of ‘5,000/- was added towards funeral expenses and ‘10,000/- towards loss of love and affection ‘4,83,000/-. to compute the overall compensation of

It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the deceased’s income ought to have been considered as ‘5792/- per month as per the Salary Certificate placed on record. There should have been an addition of 30% towards the future prospects, considering that the deceased was aged 46 years on the date of the accident; deduction towards the personal and living expenses should have been one-fourth as the Fourth Appellant (the deceased’s father), who died during proceedings before the Claims Tribunal must also be considered as a dependent on the deceased, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

As far as the deceased’s income is concerned, the same must be taken to be established in view of the Salary Certificate placed on record. Though, no witness from Indian Airlines was summoned to specifically prove the same. Since the Salary MAC APP 50/2004 Certificate was not disputed and the deceased was proved to be in service of Indian Airlines, I would accept the same.

In Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, it was laid down that subject to any evidence to the contrary, father should not be considered to be dependent on the deceased son. Since no evidence has been produced to prove that the deceased’s father was financially dependent on him, he cannot be considered as a dependent.

Thus, there were three dependents i.e. widow, a son and a daughter. The deduction towards the personal and living expenses, in this view of the matter, would be one-third as taken by the Claims Tribunal. The deceased was aged 46 years and was in settled employment with Indian Airlines, the Appellants were entitled to an addition of 30% on account of future prospects on the basis of Sarla Verma (supra). In view of the above discussion, the loss of dependency comes to ‘7,50,405/- (5792/- x 12 – 2900/- (income tax as per Assessment Year 1996-97 for salaried employees) + 30% x 2/3 x 13).

The Claims Tribunal did not award any compensation towards the loss of consortium. Considering that this accident took place in the year 1995, I would make a provision of ‘5,000/- MAC APP 50/2004 towards the same. I would raise the compensation of ‘10,000/- towards loss of love and affection to ‘15,000/- and would further award a sum of ‘5,000/- towards loss to estate in addition to a sum of ‘5,000/- towards funeral expenses awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

The overall compensation (‘7,50,405/- + 30,000/-). thus comes to ‘7,80,405/-

The enhanced compensation of ‘2,97,405/- shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of the impugned judgment i.e. 22.08.2003 and @ 7.5% per annum from 23.08.2003 till the date of payment.

First and the Second Respondents being owner of the Army Truck No. 89D77888M and the driver’s employer are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest in the name of the First Appellant in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court New Delhi.

The enhanced compensation along with interest shall enure for the benefit of the First Appellant and shall be released forthwith on deposit.