IN THE COURT OF MS. [ENTITY], PO: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL2, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI [CASE NUMBER] Date of Institution: 09.12.2009 IN THE MATTER OF: 1. Shri [ENTITY] (since expired) S/o Late Shri [ENTITY] 2. Smt. [ENTITY] W/o Shri [ENTITY] 3. Ms. [ENTITY] D/o Shri [ENTITY] All R/o: H. No. C58, First Floor JangpuraB New Delhi 110014. Petitioners Versus 1. Shri [ENTITY] S/o Shri [ENTITY] R/o H.No.33 (FF), Jangpura Road Bhogal New Delhi 110014. 2. Shri [ENTITY] S/o Shri [ENTITY] R/o E24, [ENTITY] Near Shalimar Cinema [CASE NUMBER] Page no. 1 of 25 [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] Ashram New Delhi 110014. Respondents
Final Arguments heard : 07.03.2015 Award reserved for : 06.04.2015 Date of Award : 06.04.2015 AWARD
1. Vide this judgmentcumaward, I proceed to decide the petition filed u/[SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT], as amended uptodate (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for grant of compensation in a road accident.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that on 23.06.2008, the deceased [ENTITY] along with his four other friends started their journey for the spiritual seeing of [ENTITY] at Uttarakhand. They all were traveling in the vehicle being silver coloured Qualis bearing No.DL3F AJ0033 which was brought by the respondent No.1 to the house of the petitioners and he picked up the deceased from there and the offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent No.1 himself. It is averred that as per the police case the respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle at a very fast speed, rashly and negligently and when the vehicle reached at about 15.05 on 24.06.2008 near Sangrila Hotel, Village Raitoli, Distt. Rudraprayag, Uttrakhand, the respondent No.1 lost control upon the vehicle due to the fast speed and the vehicle fell down in the valley from a maximum height and in the accident the deceased [ENTITY] died on the spot. It is averred [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] that FIR No.27/2008 under [SECTION] [ACT] had been registered at PS Rudraprayag on the statement of Ct. [ENTITY] who was present at the site when the accident took place and was also the eye witness of the incident. It is averred that the eye witness had stated in his statement, on the basis of which the FIR was registered, that the respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle very rashly and negligently and due to the said reason only the fatal accident was caused as he lost control over the vehicle and in order to save his own life, he jumped from the vehicle allowing the vehicle to fall into the deep ditch. It is averred that in the trial under [SECTION], the respondent No.1 pleaded guilty before the Trial Court and he had been convicted by the court for fine of Rs.500/ and TRC.
3. It is averred that the date of birth of the deceased was 19.7.1978 and he was 31 years old and he was doing selfbusiness as shopkeeper at M/s New Army Shopping Centre Shop, 4/1/5060, Gopi Nath Bazar, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi 110010 and was earning Rs.15,000/ p.m. approximately. It is averred that the deceased had left behind the petitioners and the petitioners were dependent upon the deceased for financial and moral support. It is averred that the petitioners are also entitled for compensation for shock, bodily pain and the mental tension suffered by the deceased on account of the accident in question. It is averred that the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners being the owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent No.1 is also liable to pay compensation as the accident had [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] taken place only due to his fault, so both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation jointly and/or severally. It is prayed that an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/ be awarded as compensation in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
4. It was stated on 7.10.2010 that the vehicle in question was not insured on the date of the alleged accident. It was also stated that the parties were willing to settle the matter. The petition was dismissed in default vide order dated 07.10.2010 of my learned predecessor. Vide order dated 03.09.2011 of my learned predecessor, the application for restoration of the petition was allowed. Vide order dated 05.10.2011 of my learned predecessor, the respondent No.2 was proceeded exparte. Written statement was not filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 and the defence of the respondent No.1 was struck off vide order dated 05.10.2011.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 05.10.2011:
1. Whether the deceased sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 24.06.2008 at about 03.05 PM near Sangrila Hotel, village Raitoli, District Rudraprayag, Uttrakhand, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.DL3FAJ0033, driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2? [CASE NUMBER] Page no. 4 of 25 [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY]
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
An application was filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 for setting aside the exparte order which was allowed vide order dated 11.01.2012 of my learned predecessor. Vide order dated 11.01.2012, award under [SECTION] [ACT] was passed in favour of the petitioners. It was stated on 25.2.2013 that the petitioner No.1 Shri [ENTITY] had expired. The matter was also referred to Mediation Cell, vide order dated 18.09.2013 of my learned predecessor but thereafter the matter could not be settled. However, with the intervention of the court, the matter was settled between the parties and the respondents No. 1 and 2 were directed to make the payment in installments to the petitioners. The respondent No.1 made the payment while the respondent No.2 defaulted in making the payment after handing over the amount of the first installment.
6. On behalf of the petitioners, the petitioner No.2 Smt. [ENTITY] appeared in the witness box as PW1 and led her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1 reiterating the averments made in the claim petition. She deposed that on 23.06.2008, the deceased [ENTITY] along with his friends started journey in vehicle No.DL3FAJ0033 for the spiritual seeing of [ENTITY] at Uttarakhand. On 24.06.2008 at about 04:00 PM, the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and when they reached at Sangrila Hotel near Village [CASE NUMBER] Page no. 5 of 25 [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] Ratoli, Distt. Rudraprayag, the vehicle was at very high speed and the driver of the offending vehicle had lost the control over the vehicle, due to which the vehicle fell down in the valley as a result of which the deceased [ENTITY] died on the spot. She stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1. She stated that the deceased was removed to government hospital where the post mortem was conducted by the doctors concerned. She stated that the deceased left behind his mother, father and sister as his legal heirs. Thereafter the father of the deceased had expired. She stated that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 30 years. She stated that the driver of the offending vehicle had already been convicted by the concerned Magistrate at Rudra Prayag as he pleaded guilty. She stated that the accident was caused by the driver of the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he was totally responsible for the said accident. Certified copy of post mortem report of the deceased is Ex.PW1/A and copies of the voter ICards of the petitioners are Ex.PW1/B. Criminal record was filed in connected [CASE NUMBER]. She was not crossexamined on behalf of the respondents. PE was closed on 07.03.2015 and RE was also closed on 07.03.2015.
7. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 in person and perused the record.
[CASE NUMBER] Page no. 6 of 25 [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY]
8. My findings on the specific issues are as under:
9. As the petition has been filed U/[SECTION] [ACT] it was incumbent upon the petitioners to prove that the deceased sustained injuries in an accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle it has been held in [PRECEDENT] as follows:
"The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents/claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] (supra). On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced: (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No.955 of 2004, pertaining to involvement of offending vehicle (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under [SECTION], [ACT] against the driver;
(iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of deceased.
These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under the [ACT] are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant [CASE NUMBER] Page no. 7 of 25 [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on part of the driver."
It is established law that in a claim petition under [ACT], the standard of proof to establish rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle is not at par with the criminal case where such rashness and negligence is required to be proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. In [PRECEDENT], it was inter alia held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injury or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT].
10. The case of the petitioners is that on 23.06.2008, the deceased [ENTITY] along with his four other friends started their journey for the spiritual seeing of [ENTITY] at Uttarakhand. They all were traveling in the vehicle being silver coloured Qualis bearing No.DL3F AJ0033 which was brought by the respondent No.1 to the house of the petitioners and he picked up the deceased and the offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent No.1 himself. It was averred that as per the police case the respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle at a very fast speed, rashly and negligently and when the vehicle reached at about 15.05 on [CASE NUMBER] Page no. 8 of 25 [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] 24.06.2008 near Sangrila Hotel, Village Raitoli, Distt. Rudraprayag, Uttrakhand, the respondent No.1 lost control upon the vehicle due to the fast speed and the vehicle fell down in the valley from a maximum height and in the accident the deceased [ENTITY] died at the spot. It was averred that FIR No.27/2008 under [SECTION] [ACT] had been registered at PS Rudraprayag on the statement of Ct. [ENTITY] who was present at the site when the accident took place and was also the eye witness of the incident. It was averred that the eye witness had stated in his statement, on the basis of which the FIR was registered, that the respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle very rashly and negligently and due to the said reason only the fatal accident was caused as he lost control over the vehicle and in order to save his own life, he jumped from the vehicle allowing the vehicle to fall into the deep ditch. It was averred that in the trial under [SECTION], the respondent No.1 pleaded guilty before the Trial Court and he had been convicted by the court for fine of Rs.500/ and TRC. In paras 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 of her affidavit Ex.PW1/1 the petitioner No.2 had reiterated the mode and manner of the accident as stated in the claim petition.
11. The petitioners (in connected [CASE NUMBER]) had filed the certified copy of the criminal record consisting of copy of charge sheet and copy of post mortem report, copy of the judgment of Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rudraprayag dated 2.3.2009, copy of FIR, copy of site plan and copy of arrest memo. As per the FIR No.27/08 under [SECTION] [ACT], [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] Rudraprayag the case was registered on the basis of complaint of Ct. [ENTITY]. As per the charge sheet the respondent No.1 had been charge sheeted for the offence under [SECTION] [ACT].
12. The respondents No.1 and 2 had not filed the written statement nor crossexamined PW1. It would be argued that the petitioners had not examined any eye witness to prove the negligence of the respondent No.1 and as such they had failed to establish the negligence of the respondent No.1. However the respondents No.1 and 2 who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle have not adduced any evidence to dispute the version put forth by the petitioners or in the criminal record. The criminal record has been placed on record which shows that the respondent No.1 has been charge sheeted for the offence under [SECTION] [ACT]. In [PRECEDENT] it was observed that registration of criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle was enough to record a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for causing the accident. It is also pertinent that the respondent No.1 had admitted his guilt before the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and he was convicted for the offence under [SECTION] [ACT] vide judgment dated 2.3.2009. The respondents have also not led any evidence to prove any other version of the accident. There is no evidence from the respondents to disprove the particulars of the accident or the involvement of vehicle No.DL3FAJ0033. In view of the testimony of PW1 [CASE NUMBER] Page no. 10 of 25 [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] and the documents on record which have remained unrebutted, the negligence of the respondent No.1 has been prima facie proved.
13. It was stated that due to the accident the deceased died. The post mortem report of the deceased is on record which shows that the cause of death was shock and hemmorhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. Thus it stands established that the deceased had sustained injuries in the alleged accident due to which he died. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No.2
14. Since issue No.1 has been decided in favour of the petitioners they would be entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the Act. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased being his parents and sister. PW1 was not crossexamined on the point of dependency. The petitioner No.2 being the mother would be regarded as dependent on the deceased. The petitioner No.1 being the father would not be regarded as dependent on the deceased, as per the well settled law and he had also expired during the pendency of the proceedings. Further the sister of the deceased Ms. [ENTITY] had been joined as petitioner No.3 but she would not be regarded as dependent on the deceased but on the father. As [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] such only the petitioner No.2 Smt. [ENTITY] would be regarded as dependent on the deceased.
15. The petitioners have claimed loss of dependency on the basis that the date of birth of the deceased was 19.7.1978 and he was doing selfbusiness as shopkeeper at M/s New Army Shopping Centre Shop, 4/1/5060, Gopi Nath Bazar, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi 110010 and was earning Rs.15,000/ p.m. approximately. It was averred that the deceased had left behind the petitioners and the petitioners were dependent upon the deceased for financial and moral support. It was averred that the petitioners were also entitled for compensation for shock, bodily pain and the mental tension suffered by the deceased on account of the accident in question. However the petitioners have not placed on record any document to show what the deceased was doing or how much amount he was earning at the time of the accident or even to show that he was running the shop as stated by them. PW1 was not crossexamined on this aspect. The petitioners have not placed on record any document to even show the educational qualifications of the deceased. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the income of the deceased would have to be computed on the basis of minimum wages for an unskilled worker on the date of the accident i.e. 24.6.2008 which were Rs.3,633/ p.m. [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY]
16. It is the case of the petitioners that the date of birth of the deceased was 19.7.1978 and it was so stated in the claim petition and in the evidence by way of affidavit PW1 had deposed that the deceased was 30 years old. Thus the deceased would have been more than 29 years old on the date of the accident i.e. 24.6.2008. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [ENTITY] and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) the multiplier of 17 applies for calculating the loss of income where the age of the deceased is 26 to 30 years. However as per the law in the case of death of a child, the multiplier would be as per the age of the mother and not as per the age of the deceased. In the case of [PRECEDENT], decided on 24.03.2014 and in [PRECEDENT] decided on 1.4.2014 the multiplier was taken as per the age of the deceased. However In [PRECEDENT]. [CASE NUMBER] decided on 12.1.2015 the question of multiplier i.e. whether it has to be as per the age of the Claimant or as per the age of the deceased was gone into and relying upon the judgments in [PRECEDENT]; General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. [ENTITY] (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176; New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. [ENTITY] (Smt.) & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 1; [ENTITY] (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and [PRECEDENT], it [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] was held that the multiplier will be as per the age of the deceased or the Claimant whichever is higher. It was observed:
"23. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Claimants that multiplier has to be as per the age of the deceased and not as per the age of the Claimants. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the Claimants places reliance on [ENTITY] (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and [PRECEDENT]; wherein it was held that the multiplier has to be taken as per the age of the deceased.
24. This issue was gone into detail by this Court wherein the history of awarding reasonable compensation was gone into. This Court referred to a three Judge Bench decision in [PRECEDENT]; General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. [ENTITY] (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176; another three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. [ENTITY] (Smt.) & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 1, [ENTITY] (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Shyam Singh & Ors., (2011) 7 SCC 65, and in paras 4 to 8 observed as under: "4. As far as the selection of multiplier is concerned, the law is settled that the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimants whichever is higher. There is a three Judges Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 362, where the Supreme Court relied on G.M., Kerala SRTC v. [ENTITY], (1994) 2 SCC 176 and reiterated that the choice of the multiplier is [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimants whichever is more. Para 12 of the report is extracted hereunder: "12. For concluding the analysis it is necessary now to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport, v. [ENTITY]: (1994) 2 SCC 176. In that case this Court culled out the basic principles governing the assessment of compensation emerging from the legal authorities cited above and reiterated that the multiplier method is the sound method of assessing compensation. The Court observed:
"The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants, whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumedup over the period for which the dependency is expected to last.
The principle was explained and illustrated by a mathematical example:
"The multiplier represents the number of Years' purchase on which the loss of dependency is [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] capitalised. Take for instance a case where annual loss of dependency is Rs. 10,000. If a sum of Rs.1,00,000 is invested at 10% annual interest, the interest will take care of the dependency, perpetually. The multiplier in this case works out to 10. If the rate of interest is 5% per annum and not 10% then the multiplier needed to capitalise the loss of the annual dependency at Rs.10,000 would be 20. Then the multiplier i.e., the number of Years' purchase of 20 will yield the annual dependency perpetually. Then allowance to scale down the multiplier would have to be made taking into account the uncertainties of the future, the allowances for immediate lump sum payment, the period over which the dependency is to last being shorter and the capital feed also to be spent away over the period of dependency is to last etc. Usually in English Courts the operative multiplier rarely exceeds 16 as maximum. This will come down accordingly as the age of the deceased person (or that of the dependents, whichever is higher) goes up."
5. There is another three Judges decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. [ENTITY] (Smt.) & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 1, where in the case of the death of a bachelor, who was aged only 25 years, the multiplier of 5 was applied according to the age of the mother of the deceased, who was about 65 years at the time of the accident. Para 6 of the report is extracted hereunder: "6. Considering the income that was taken, the foundation for working out the compensation [CASE NUMBER] Page no. 16 of 25 [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] cannot be faulted. The monthly contribution was fixed at Rs.3,500/. In the normal course we would have remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on the materials placed before it. But considering the fact that the matter is pending since long, it would be appropriate to take the multiplier of 5 considering the fact that the mother of the deceased is about 65 years at the time of the accident and age of the father is more than 65 years. Taking into account the monthly contribution at Rs.3,500/ as held by the Tribunal and the High Court, the entitlement of the claim would be Rs.2,10,000/. The same shall bear interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the application for compensation. Payment already made shall be adjusted from the amount due."
6. Learned counsel for the Appellant referred to [ENTITY] (supra) in support of the proposition that age of the deceased is to be taken into consideration for selection of the multiplier. As an example the multiplier taken in various cases such as in [ENTITY] (supra), [PRECEDENT] as clarified in [PRECEDENT] and the multiplier as mentioned in [SECTION] to the [ACT] were compared and it was held that the multiplier as per Column No.4 in the said table was appropriate for application. [ENTITY] (supra) related to the death of one [ENTITY] who had left behind his widow, three minor children apart from his parents and the grandfather. Obviously, the age of the deceased was taken into consideration for the purpose of selection of the multiplier as the deceased left behind a widow younger to him, apart from three minor children. It was not laid down as a proposition of law that irrespective of the age of the [CASE NUMBER] Page no. 17 of 25 [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] claimants, the age of the deceased is to be taken into consideration for selection of the multiplier for calculation of the loss of dependency. It is true that in [ENTITY] (supra 2) and [ENTITY] (supra 3) and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. [ENTITY] (supra 5), the Hon'ble Supreme Court applied the multiplier according to the age of the deceased, yet in view of [ENTITY] (supra) and [ENTITY] (supra) decided by the three Judges of the Supreme Court, the judgment in [ENTITY] (supra 2), [ENTITY] (supra 3) and [ENTITY] (supra 5) cannot be taken as a precedent for selection of the multiplier.
7. In the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], decided on04.07.2011, the Supreme Court referred to [ENTITY] & Anr. v. Satbir Singh & Anr., (2008) 2 SCC 667 and held that the multiplier as per the age of the deceased or the claimant whichever is higher would be applicable. Para 9 and 10 of the report are apposite: "9. This Court in the case of [ENTITY] & Anr. v. Satbir Singh & Anr., (2008) 2 SCC 667, after referring to the earlier judgments of this Court, in detail, dealt with the law with regard to determination of the multiplier in a similar situation as in the present case. The said findings of this Court are as under: "6. We have given anxious consideration to these contentions and are of the opinion that the same are devoid of any merits. Considering the law laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
Charlie, AIR 2005 SC 2157, it is clear that the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of [CASE NUMBER] Page no. 18 of 25 [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] the deceased or claimants whichever is higher.
Admittedly, the age of the father was 55 years.
The question of mother's age never cropped up because that was not the contention raised even before the Trial Court or before us. Taking the age to be 55 years, in our opinion, the courts below have not committed any illegality in applying the multiplier of 8 since the father was running 56th year of his life."
10. In our view, the dictum laid down in [ENTITY] (supra) is applicable to the present case on all fours.
Accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal had rightfully applied the multiplier of 8 by taking the average of the parents of the deceased who were 55 and 56 years."
8. Similarly in [PRECEDENT], decided on 26.03.2010, the multiplier of 13 was applied in case of death of a young bachelor where the mother was 47 years of age."
25.There is no manner of doubt that the appropriate multiplier while awarding compensation for death of an unmarried boy, the multiplier will be selected on the basis of age of the mother of the deceased."
This has been reiterated in [PRECEDENT]. [CASE NUMBER] decided on 14.1.2015; [PRECEDENT] Page no. 19 of 25 [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] MAC. [CASE NUMBER] decided on 19.1.2015 and in [PRECEDENT]. [CASE NUMBER] decided on 19.1.2015 and in [PRECEDENT]. [CASE NUMBER] decided on 5.2.2015. Thus the multiplier applicable will be as per the age of the mother of the deceased in the case of an unmarried boy. The copy of the voter identity card of the petitioner No.2 is on record as per which the age of the petitioner No.2 as on 1.1.2008 was 61 years. Accordingly she would be more than 61 years old on the date of the accident i.e. 24.6.2008. As such the multiplier applicable in the instant case would be of 7.
17. Since the deceased was unmarried there would be 50% deduction towards personal and living expenses. As regards the future prospects in [PRECEDENT]. [CASE NUMBER] decided on 12.1.2015 which has been further relied on in [PRECEDENT]. MAC. [CASE NUMBER] decided on 28.1.2015 and [PRECEDENT]. [CASE NUMBER] decided on 28.1.2015 it was held that the judgment in [PRECEDENT] shall be taken as a binding precedent in which judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court while approving the ratio with regard to future prospects in [ENTITY] (Smt.) & Ors. (supra) held as under: "38. With regard to the addition to income for future prospects, in [ENTITY] [[ENTITY] v. DTC, (2009) 6 [CASE NUMBER] Page no. 20 of 25 [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002], this Court has noted the earlier decisions in [ENTITY] [Kerala SRTC v. [ENTITY], (1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335] , [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT] and in para 24 of the Report held as under: ([ENTITY] case [[ENTITY] v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002], SCC p. 134) "24. In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words "actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances."
[CASE NUMBER] Page no. 21 of 25 [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY]
39. The standardization of addition to income for future prospects shall help in achieving certainty in arriving at appropriate compensation. We approve the method that an addition of 50% of actual salary be made to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and the addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years and no addition should be made where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the actual salary shall mean actual salary less tax. In the cases where the deceased was selfemployed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects will be appropriate. A departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases." There is nothing to show the future prospects of the deceased or even to show that he had a permanent job and as such the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects would be taken and the petitioners would not be entitled to any addition of the income towards future prospects.
Accordingly the loss of dependency as per the monthly income i.e. Rs.3,633/ is calculated as under :
Rs.3,633/ - Rs.1,816.5/ (i.e. 50% towards personal expenses) = Rs.
1,816.5 X 12 (annually) X 7 (multiplier) = Rs.1,52,586/ rounded off to Rs.
[CASE NUMBER] Page no. 22 of 25 [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] 1,53,000/.
18. The petitioners are entitled to compensation for loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses.
The total compensation is determined as under:
Loss of dependency : Rs.1,53,000/ Love and affection : Rs.1,00,000/ Loss of Estate : Rs.10,000/ Funeral expenses : Rs.25,000/ Total : Rs.2,88,000/
Thus, the total compensation would amount to Rs.2,88,000/. RELIEF
19. The petitioners are awarded a sum of Rs.2,88,000/ (Rs.Two Lacs Eighty Eight Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization, including, interim award, if any already passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents and the amount that has already been paid. It may be mentioned that a sum of Rs.2,50,000/ has already been paid by the respondents No.1 and 2 to the petitioners out of the said sum. The petitioner No.1 has already expired. The [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] petitioner No.2 Smt. [ENTITY] would be entitled to the awarded amount. The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the amount directly in court by way of crossed cheque/ demand draft, failing which he would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay. APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:
20. The respondent No.1 is the driver and the respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Thus the respondents No.1 and 2 are held jointly and severally liable. It may be mentioned that the respondent No.1 has already paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/ to the petitioners, being his share of the amount for which the matter was initially compromised but the respondent No. 2 had defaulted in making the payment. Even otherwise, the respondent No.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation on behalf of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 being the owner is directed to deposit the award amount in the court by way of crossed cheque/ demand draft within 30 days of the passing of the award with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization failing which he would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
21. [ENTITY] to report in case the cheque is not deposited within 30 days of the passing of the award/judgment. [ENTITY] is directed to note the particulars of the [CASE NUMBER] Page no. 24 of 25 [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] award amount in the register today itself. The respondent No.2 shall deposit the award amount along with interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimants with a copy to their counsel and the compliance report shall be filed in the court along with proof of deposit of award amount, the notice of deposit and the calculation of interest on 13.07.2015.
An attested copy of the award be given to the parties (free of cost). File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on this 6th day of April, 2015 ([ENTITY]) PO: MACT2 New Delhi [CASE NUMBER] Page no. 25 of 25 [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY]