Smt. Kitabo Devi v. Sarfraz & Ors.

Mr. Rakesh Lathwal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. ----

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? To be referred to the reporters or not ?

2. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J. (Oral) ----

1. In FAO No.3703 of 2002, the claim is by the mother for death of her daughter aged 16 ½ years. The girl had done upto 5th standard. There was evidence that the girl child used to provide Rs.5,000/- income towards family expenses by doing stitching work. The Tribunal refused to believe the evidence to hold on an overall consideration that the mother would be gone through mental shock and agony, she should have also been supported by the girl and provided a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa Vs. State FAO No.3703 of 2002 - 2 - of Bihar-2001(8) SCC 197 for the death of 16 persons in Jamshedji Tata's birth anniversary celebrations, the Court had awarded Rs.4.10 lacs to each of the claimants. It is difficult to accept the contention made by the learned counsel that in all cases of children aged between 10 to 15 years, the compensation must be awarded at that rate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was approving the report to be given by Justice Chandrachud, who obtained evidence that they were all children of employees of TISCO and TISCO which had a tradition of affording employment to at least one child of each employee in the Company. Having regard to the particular circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the contribution to the family would have been Rs.24,000/- at least and adopting a multiplier of 15, provided for Rs.3,60,000/- as compensation and added an additional sum of Rs.50,000/- to provide Rs.4,10,000/-. In this case the evidence is that the girl child was doing some stitching work and who had studied upto 5th standard. Evidently she was semi-literate and instead of providing for an arbitrary sum, I would root it to the provision of law under schedule-II of the MV Act by providing the notional income at Rs.1500/- , make for 50% deduction towards her own expenses and adopt a multiplier of 18. The amount that would become payable would be Rs.1,62,000/-. On this will be added loss of love and affection for the mother, which will be Rs.5,000/- and adding the conventional heads of claim towards loss to estate and funeral expenses an additional sum of Rs.5,000/-, the total amount will be assessed at Rs.1,72,000/-. There shall be, therefore, an additional amount of Rs.47,000/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of FAO No.3703 of 2002 - 3 - award of the Tribunal till the date of payment.

3. The award of the Tribunal is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.

4. In FAO No.3704 of 2002, the claim is for enhancement of compensation for a person, who had had simple injuries. The Tribunal has taken note of the injuries and provided for Rs.10,000/- as compensation for pain and sufferings and other expenses. The amount, in my view, is just and adequate and there shall be no scope for intervention. The appeal is dismissed.

5. In FAO No.3705 of 2002, there is an identical situation of a daughter of a similar age and the claimant is the mother. The Tribunal has provided for Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation and I do not want to replicate the same line of reasoning as I have done in the earlier case in FAO No.3703 of 2002. I shall, therefore, provide for an additional sum of Rs.47,000/- with interest @7.5% from the date of award of the Tribunal till the date of payment.

6. In FAO No.3715 of 2002 the claim is for enhancement for death of a person, who was an Assistant Lineman with MTNL. It was in evidence that he was drawing Rs.4900/-. The claimants were the widow, a major son and a minor son. Yet another daughter that the deceased had, had also died in the same accident, which is the subject of an independent claim. There were, therefore, three persons who were dependents on the deceased. The only challenge, which the learned counsel mounts on the award is that the multiplier adopted was 9 when it should have been 11 as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court FAO No.3703 of 2002 - 4 - in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009(6) SCC 121. I accede to the contentions and would adopt a higher multiplier of 11 for an annual dependency, which was taken as Rs.40,000/-. The amount must have been Rs.4,40,000/-. An additional sum of Rs.20,000/- was already awarded by the Tribunal for transportation and other conventional heads. I adopt the same and provide for a total compensation of Rs.4,60,000/-. The additional amount of Rs.80,000/- shall be provided with interest @7.5% from the date of the award of the Tribunal till the date of payment.

7. FAO No.3723 of 2002 addresses again a similar situation where the claim petition is filed at the instance of the parents for the death of their daughter. I adopt again same line of reasoning and provide for an additional sum of Rs.47,000/- with interest @7.5% from the date of award of the Tribunal till the date of payment.

8. In the rest of the cases, the Tribunal has awarded compensation factoring the nature of injury, the hospitalization, if any, pain and sufferings, loss of income actually incurred and arrived at a compensation of figures in the range of Rs.10,000 to 35,000/-. There is a certain amount of approximation that is inevitable in determination of compensation for injuries. While for pecuniary damages, it is possible to address the claims with certitude, non-pecuniary damages involve certain subjective assessment. The Tribunal has disposed of the cases takes a particular amount as reasonable and just, unless there is something grossly inappropriate or out of sync with the parameters set down by higher authorities, there ought not to be a scope for intervention. I retain FAO No.3703 of 2002 - 5 - the awards as they have been made in all the cases of simple injuries where there has been no permanent disablement in the manner done by the Tribunal. All the appeals are, therefore, disposed of affirming the awards.

28.07.2010 sanjeev/pankaj (K.KANNAN) JUDGE