Jassu Kanwar vs Simbhu Dayal and Others

G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 6,65,140/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of the Appellant for the death of Devraj, a bachelor who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 13.12.2007. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver, owner or the Insurance Company, the finding on negligence has attained finality.

During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that the deceased was working as a Service Engineer with Infra-Tech Solutions, 4-5, WZ-13D/3, Asalat Pur, Janakpuri, New Delhi and was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month including Rs. 7,000/- from M/s. Infra-Tech Solutions and remaining from other sources.

The Appellant examined PW-3 Puneet Narula, Proprietor of M/s. Infra-Tech Solutions to prove the deceased''s income. The Claims Tribunal, however, observed that there were some overwritings in the register and, therefore, declined to believe the salary certificate or PW-3''s testimony. The Claims Tribunal, therefore, took the minimum wages of a Matriculate to compute the loss of dependency.

The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:-

(i) The salary certificate Ex. PW-3/2 was duly proved by the deceased employer. It should have been taken into consideration to compute the loss of dependency.

(ii) Deduction of 50% towards personal and living expenses was on the higher side.

(iii) The Claims Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 15 as per the age of the deceased''s mother (37 years). The multiplier should have been 18 as per the age of the deceased.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent Insurance Company supports the award urging that the salary certificate was rightly discarded by the Claims Tribunal on account of the discrepancies found in the Attendance register. It is urged that in case of a bachelor, deduction towards personal and living expenses is 50%, which was rightly adopted by the Claims Tribunal. It is stated that the multiplier has to be as per the age of the deceased or the Claimant whichever is higher.

INCOME

I have before me the Trial Court record. PW-3 Puneet Narula, Proprietor of M/s. Infra-Tech Solutions produced the Attendance register and salary record of deceased Devraj. He testified that the deceased was employed in the month of August 2007 and he continued to work with him till his death. He stated that he was the proprietor of the earlier said firm. The Claims Tribunal, however, noticed some discrepancies in the attendance-salary register in as much as some of the entries have been made in pencil. The original register is available on the Trial Court record. It is true that in some of the entries there are some corrections/overwriting. No explanation with regard to this overwriting was sought from PW-3. No suggestion was given to him that deceased Devraj was not his employee.

It is important to note that this Salary-cum-Attendance register is from June, 2007 and Devraj joined this firm only in August, 2007. This very register continued till January, 2010. The overwriting with respect to the entry relevant to the deceased Devraj is with regard to the figure 6500/- or 7,000/-. Thus, at the most the deceased''s salary should have been taken as Rs. 6500/-.

As far as deduction towards personal and living expenses is concerned, the law is well settled that in case of a bachelor the deduction towards personal and living expenses is to be 50% unless he has responsibility of his younger siblings, that is, either his father is not alive or he is unable to do any work. In the instant case, it was not such a case where the deceased had the responsibility of his siblings.

With regard to the selection of multiplier also, the law is well settled that the multiplier has to be as per the age of the deceased or the Claimant whichever is higher. ( U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, ; New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti Pathak and Others, ; National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shyam Singh and Others, , decided on 04.07.2011; Ramesh Singh and Another Vs. Satbir Singh and Another, ).

There was no evidence with regard to deceased''s bright future prospects. The Appellant would not be entitled to an addition of 50%. Rather, she would be entitled to an addition of 30% towards inflation on the basis of the report of the Supreme Court in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, ).

In view of the above, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 7,60,500/- (6500/- + 30% x 1/2 x 12 x 15).

The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Loss of love and affection can never be measured in terms of money. Thus, uniformity has to be adopted by the Courts while granting non-pecuniary damages. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma and Others Vs. Bachitar Singh and Others, and in Baby Radhika Gupta and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, granted only Rs. 25,000/- (in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and affection. Thus, I would reduce the compensation under this head to Rs. 25,000/- only.

The Appellant is further entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss to estate.

The overall compensation is thus comes to Rs. 8,05,500/-.

The enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,40,360/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment.

The enhanced compensation along with interest shall be deposited with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks.

Seventy five percent of the enhanced compensation shall be held in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of five years and ten years in equal proportion on which the Appellant would be entitled to quarterly interest. Rest 25% shall be released on deposit.

The Appeal is allowed in above terms. Pending Applications stand disposed of.