AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—Appellant, owner of the vehicle involved in the accident has filed the appeal questioning the right of the respondents to maintain an action for loss of dependence arising due to death of Rajeev Agnihotri. It is not in dispute that the appellants are the brothers of the deceased.
The deceased was a bachelor. His parents had pre-deceased him. Except for respondents No. 1 and 2 who were the claimants he had no other brother or sister. Deceased was working as a priest (Pandit).
In relation to the income of the deceased who died on 16.3.2003, based on a solitary income tax return pertaining to the assessment year 2002-03 learned Tribunal held that the deceased was earning Rs. 42,500/- per annum. Giving benefit of future prospects of increase in income, average annual income treated as the foundation to compensate the respondent was Rs. 63,756/-. After deducting 1/3rd as the presumed personal expenses of the deceased, respondents were granted compensation of Rs. 42,504 x 17 = Rs. 7,22,568/-.
The deceased was aged 33 years. Respondent No. 1 was younger to him by about 6 years. Respondent No. 2 was elder to the deceased by nearly 17 years.
Respondent No. 1 appeared in the witness box as PW-1. He stated that his elder brother i.e. respondent No. 2 was residing at Budayun (U.P.) He stated that the deceased was residing at Delhi and used to send money to his elder brother.
But I note that there is no proof of any financial assistance flowing from the deceased to respondent No. 2.
As regards himself i.e. Sanjeev Agnihotri (respondent No. 1) he stated that he was living in a temple and that the deceased was also living in a temple when he died. He stated that in the year 2002 he was living in Vrindavan and that he lived there till the end of 2003. He stated that on some occasions he used to come to Delhi.
Notwithstanding the fact that respondent No. 1 proved the ration card showing that he and the deceased were residing together at New Delhi, proved as Ex. P-1, I hold that respondent No. 1 was not residing with his brother for the reason Ex. P-1 records that it was issued on 1.8.2002. As noted above, in his testimony, respondent No. 1 has categorically stated that in the year 2002, he was living in Vrindavan and that till the end of the year 2003, he continued to live at Vrindavan.
As noted above, the accident which took the life of the deceased occurred on 13.6.2003.
I need not therefore discuss much on the issue pertaining to assessment of compensation.
Suffice would it be to note that even the multiplier adopted i.e. 17 is excessive. Deceased was aged 33 years His elder brother was aged 50 years. The younger brother was aged 27 years. For deceased aged 33 years, multiplier of 13 was adopted by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Kalpana and Others, , In the decision reported as The Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. Vs. K.I. Bindu and Others, , for a deceased aged 34 years, multiplier adopted is 13.
But the multiplier need not trouble me much.
The question is of loss of dependency? Testimony of PW-1 i.e. younger brother of the deceased clearly brings out that all 3 brother were living separately. The eldest brother was settled at Budayun. Deceased was living in a temple at Delhi. The youngest brother was living at Vrindavan.
Thus, evidence on record establishes that the respondent were not dependent upon their brother.
Decision reported as Brijnandan Sharan Bansal and Others Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and Another, , cited by learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 is distinguishable for the reason facts of the said case were that husband and children of deceased Nirmala Devi were the claimants. Obviously, a husband and children would be the dependants of a housewife assuming she is not earning any money for the reason a housewife renders services to the family. This service can be converted into the notional income of the family. The principle of husband''s dependence on his wife and vice versa cannot be extended to brothers more so when there is positive evidence to establish that the brothers were separate in mess.
However, it cannot be argued that brothers did not suffer any loss on account of death of a brother. They suffered a emotional loss. They suffered the physical separation of a brother with whom they had spent their childhood. To that extent, respondents No. 1 and 2 require to be compensated.
A rough and ready measure would be the minimum statutorily fixed compensation payable on the death of a person at a road accident. This is the amount which is payable u/s 140 of the M.V. Act, 1988.
If the brothers were living together, pain and separation would be more. Where the brothers are separated, the pain of loss is less.
I hold that respondents No. 1 and 2 having suffered no pecuniary loss due to death of their brother for the reason the 3 brothers were living separately. There is no evidence that the deceased was sending any money to his other brothers i.e. respondents No. 1 and 2.
To recompense respondents No. 1 and 2 the non pecuniary loss i.e. pain and suffering as also loss of love and affection of a brother, I compensate the 2 by awarding them Rs. 50,000/- each.
The appeal stands disposed of modifying the impugned award by reducing the compensation payable to respondents No. 1 and 2 in sum of Rs. 50,000/- each. The compensation shall be paid with interest @6% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of realization.
No costs.