MAC APP 290/2011 Page 1 of 6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 2nd December, 2011 Pronounced on: 08th December, 2011 + MAC APP. 290/2011 KARTARI DEVI & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Adv. Versus SABU & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Saqib, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL J U D G M E N T G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. This appeal is for enhancement of compensation in respect of death of Pawan Kumar, who was aged about 20 years at the time of accident, which took place on 23.01.1998. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) by the impugned award granted a compensation of ` 2,51,800/-. 2. Initially the claim petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed. The said order was set-aside in MAC. APP. No.162/2005 by an order dated 01.12.2009. In para 10 of the order dated 01.12.2009, it was held as under: - MAC APP 290/2011 Page 2 of 6 “Noting that the accident relates to the year 1998 and the factum of the accident and death of Pawan Kumar in the accident is not disputed and the Tribunal has already given the finding with respect to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the learned Tribunal is directed to complete the inquiry within two months.” 3. Thus the Tribunal was directed to make an inquiry as to the quantum of compensation. The contentions raised on behalf of Appellants are as under: - (i) The deceased was running an electrical shop and earning ` 3,000/- per month. He was a non-matriculate yet the minimum wages of an unskilled worker were taken into consideration by the Tribunal instead of a non- matriculate. (ii) The compensation of ` 2,51,800/- is too low and cannot be said to be just compensation as even in the case of a minor the compensation of ` 3,75,000/- is being awarded by the superior courts. A reliance is placed on R. K. Malik & Anr. v. Kiran Pal & Ors., 2009 ACJ 1924 and in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Farzana & Ors., 2009 ACJ 2763. CONTENTION NO.(i) 4. In the claim petition filed before the Tribunal it was averred that the deceased was running an electrical shop in Narela and was earning ` 3,000/- per month. In the absence of any evidence as MAC APP 290/2011 Page 3 of 6 to the factum of running of the shop or earning ` 3,000/- per month, the Tribunal took a minimum wages of an unskilled worker as ` 1,784/- added 50% on the basis of Kanwar Devi v. Bansal Roadways, 2008 SCJ 2182; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Renu Devi, III (2008) AC 134 and UPSRTC v. Munni Devi, MAC. APP. No.310/2007, and deducted 50% towards personal expenses and computed the loss of dependency as ` 2,24,784/-. The School Leaving Certificate as Ex. PB of the deceased was proved during the inquiry before the Tribunal, which clearly established that the deceased left the school in the year 1996 when he was studying in 10th standard. The minimum wages of a non-matriculate on the date of accident were ` 1,977/-, whereas the same were ` 1,784/- of an unskilled worker. In the circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have taken into account the minimum wages of a non- matriculate instead of an unskilled worker. CONTENTION No.(ii) 5. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Farzana & Ors., 2009 ACJ 2763 while relying on R. K. Malik & Anr. v. Kiran Pal & Ors., 2009 ACJ 1924 and Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 2001 8 SCC 197, awarded a compensation of ` 2,51,000/- towards loss of dependency as taking a notional income at ` 15,000/- per annum, ` 75,000/- towards future prospects and ` 75,000/- towards loss of love and affection. It is urged that thus the MAC APP 290/2011 Page 4 of 6 compensation in case of death of an adult cannot be less than the compensation awarded in respect of death of a minor. In R. K. Malik (supra) a tragedy occurred when a private Bus carrying school children fell into the river Yamuna on account of rash and negligent driving of the Bus driver. Without going into the merits as to the educational qualification and the performance of each of the child a compensation of ` 2,25,000/- was awarded on the notional income of ` 15,000/-. Grant of compensation depends on so many factors i.e. the deceased’s income, the age of the deceased, the age of the claimants, etc. etc. There may be cases where there may not at all be the loss of financial dependency and compensation may be awarded only towards loss of estate (A. Manavalagan Vs. A. Krishnamurthy and Ors., I (2005) ACC 304). Thus, it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that compensation of at least ` 3,75,000/- is to be awarded in each and every case irrespective of its facts and circumstances. This contention does not hold much water. COMPUTATION 6. The Appellants are the deceased’s parents. Appellant No.1 (the deceased’s mother) was aged 43 years at the time of the accident and in the absence of any evidence with regard to the age of Appellant No.1, the dependency was calculated at the said age by applying a multiplier of ‘14’. The compensation on the wages of non matriculate, thus, works out as ` 1977 + 50% = 2,965 / 2 = 1,482 x 12 x 14 = 2,49,102/-. MAC APP 290/2011 Page 5 of 6 7. The compensation awarded towards loss of love and affection needs enhancement to ` 25,000/-. The revised compensation can be computed as under: - Compensation granted by the Tribunal: 1. Loss of dependency ` 2,24,784/- 2. Funeral & miscellaneous expenses ` 7,000/- 3. Loss of estate ` 10,000/- 4. Loss of love and affection ` 10,000/- ___________ Total ` 2,51,784/- ___________ (Total compensation rounded off to ` 2,51,800/-) Compensation enhanced: 1. Loss of dependency ` 2,49,102/- 2. Funeral & miscellaneous expenses ` 7,000/- 3. Loss of estate ` 10,000/- 4. Loss of love and affection ` 25,000/- ___________ Total ` 2,91,102/- ___________ (Total compensation rounded off to ` 2,91,100/-) 8. Enhanced compensation of ` 39,300/- shall be deposited by Respondent No.2 (Union of India) with the Registrar General of this Court within six weeks along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of MAC APP 290/2011 Page 6 of 6 payment. Out of the said compensation a sum of ` 10,000/- with proportionate interest shall be paid to Appellant No.2. Rest of the amount shall be payable to Appellant No.1. The enhanced amount shall be held in the form of FDR for a period of 2 years. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE DECEMBER 08, 2011 hs