Sr. No. Date Orders 25. % 31-7-2006 Present: Mr. J.N. Aggarwalfor the appellant. Mr. Vivek Sharma for the respondent. + MAC. AFP. No.250/2004& CMs No.2499/06& 3148/06 * Both the learned counsel submits that the amount has been settled amicably. The total amount depositedby the appellantis Rs.18.25 lacs. Out of this Rs.17,53,886/-is to be releasedto the claimant(s). Rs. 71,114/-is to be refundedto the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondentsubmits that out of the claimants share, Rs.9 lacs has alreadybeen released!vide orderdated29.11.2004and the balance I amounthas been lyingin the forai ofFDR withDelhiHighCourt. He furthersubmits in his applicationNo.2499/2006thatthis FDR may be releasedto the claimant(s) witli tlie endorsementthat the FDR shall not be encashedor encumberedin any way before three years. It is directedthat after making such endorsementthe said FDR be also given to the claimant(s) within two weeks. Rs.71,114/-be refundedto the appellant videchequewithintwo weeks. Dastito boththe parties. .Petition stands disposed of. July 31, 2006 nvn SINGH, J. '.HAND PRINTERS 01/05 1 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signing Date:16.02.2024 17:12 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI MAC APPEAL NO. 250 of2004 % Date of Decision ; 09 November. 2005. Deiiii Transport Corporattoii .... Appellant. Through Mr. .7.N.AggarwaI, Advocate. VERSUS SnitRekhaSingh &Ors. ....Respondents. Through Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate. COR.4M: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. 3. Whetha:Reportersoflocalpapersmay be allowedlo see ihejudgmetil? To be refared to the Reports or not ? ^Tietharthejudgmentshouldbereported ill tlie Digest ? SANJIV KHANNA. .T; (OR\L) The present Appeal Is directed against the Award dated 4"^ February, 2004 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in S, TVo.93/2003 titled Ms, Rekha. Singh and others versus Shri Bharat Singh and another. The appellant-iyrC, is aggrievedby the said Award on two grounds. It is firstly submitted MACA 250/2004 Page 1 of 5 n \ that it is a case of contributory negligence and this aspect has not been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal, Secondly, it is submitted that the age of the dece?ised-Mr, Mahesh Pal Singh at I the time of death ws 59 years and, therefore, the learned Tribujial I has erred in doubling the incom.e of the deceased for computing the loss of dependency.It is submitted that keepingin view the age of the deceased, future prospects should not have been taken into consideration as the deceased was woriang in the Mmstry of I II External AifaiiB and wouJd have retired withJn one year. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the compensation v/hich has been awarded is just and fair. It is also submitted that only Rs.25,000/- has been awarded towards loss of consortium. He has pointed out that respondent no.l has become a widow and has been deprived of company of her husband, ; I have gone through the paper book and the contentions of the learned coimsel for the parties. I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the present case is one of contributoryneglkgence. Learned counsel for the i respondent has shown me certified copy of the site plan v^hich MACA 250/2004 Page 2 of 5 /A r,learlyshows that the bus was being rashly driven and had come also evidence of Srfr.B, P. r along v^th the deceased, accident had taken place. on the wrong side of the road. There is Sarkar-PW-2 v/ho \vas travelling in the C£ He has stated in his evidence how the The allegations of negligence stand duly proved. I Regarding the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, I find that it has some merit. The deceased, at the time of death, ws 59 years old and would have retired within about one year. He was earning T?s,2,24,303/- p,a. There v/as hardly any UkeMhood of his salary going up or increasing to the extent of becoming double. Keeping in jview the age of the deceased and the fact that he wa.s just about to retire, there is no justification and reason to double his yearly salaiy on the ground of fu.tT-ire prospects for the purpose of calculating the loss of dependency, Tt may also be mentioned here that as per the I affidavit filed before the learned Tribunal at the time of the death of i the deceased, respondent no.l {daughter of the appellant) was already married and settled down in Varanasi v»ith her husband and respondent no.3 (son of the ap];)ellant) had settled down in the I States and was working there. Keeping in view these factors, I feel MACA 250/2004 Page 3 of 5 that the learned Tribunal has erred in doubling the income for the purpose of applying the multipHer and calculating the loss of dependency. To that extent, the Award passed by the learned t Tribunal is modified. The loss of dependency should be calculated as underr- (l)Annual income from salary : Rs.2,24,303/- [less 1/3 towards personal expenses) : (-) Rs, 74,768/- (2) Annual dependency Rs, 1,49,535/-, The learned Tribtmal has applied multiplier of 8, \dilch is as i I per Schedule II of the Motor Accidents Act, 1988. The multiplier applied in the present case appears to be Just and fair. In any case, no argument has been addressed that the same is excessive. On the annual dependency as determined above, the total loss of dependency xvould come to Rs,l 1,96,280/-, Tn addition, the respondent v/il,i be entitled to Rs,20,000/- towards funeral expenses and E_S.25,000/- towards loss of i consortium, as awarded hy the learned Tribunal, ITius, in all the respondent will be entitled to "Rs,12,4:1,280/- along with interest as I mentioned at internal page 10 of the Award, The compensation MACA 250/2004 Page 4 of 5 % shall be paid In terms of and in the proportion as mentioned in the Award, 50% of the compensation payable shaU be kept in a fixed I deposit of a nationalised bank for a period of three years. Excess I amotint, if any, deposited by the appellant may be refunded along j with interest, if any, ' The Appeal is accordingly partly allowed and the impugned award/Judgment dated 4"^ Febmar^^ 2004 is modified to the extent indicated above. No costs. NOVEMB^ 9, 2005 P. MACA 260/2004 SANJIV KH/UmA, J -Gqk Page 5 of 5