Mewa Devi vs Ram Bharose

G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation of Rs. 3,55,458/- awarded for the death of Satish Kumar who died in an accident which occurred on 30.08.2004. By impugned order the Claims Tribunal held that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of Tanker No. DL IGB-0624 by the Respondent No. 1. Although, during enquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that the deceased was working as an RTV driver and his salary was stated to be Rs. 200/- per day. Yet in the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the deceased''s employment or salary, the Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of an unskilled worker, deducted 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses and selected the multiplier of ''13'' to compute the loss of dependency as Rs. 3,15,458/-. An overall compensation of Rs. 3,55,458/- was awarded.

Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellants:-

(i) The deceased was working as an RTV driver, his income should have been believed to be Rs. 200/- per day as claimed by the Appellants.

(ii) The number of dependants were eight; thus instead of 1/3rd, 1/5th ought to have been deducted towards the personal and living expenses.

(iii) The deceased was aged 45 years at the time of accident as accepted by the Claims Tribunal, the appropriate multiplier would be ''14'' instead of ''13'' as taken by the Claims Tribunal.

During evidence before the Claims Tribunal, Mewa Devi the widow of the deceased appeared as PW-1 and testified that the deceased was working as a driver of RTV Vans and was earning Rs. 200/- per day. She deposed that he used to work daily except on one or two Sundays in a month. In cross-examination PW-1 admitted that she was not in possession of any documentary evidence with regard to the deceased''s income or his profession.

This is important to note that ASI Ved Pal (PW-3), the IO of the criminal case registered in respect of this accident admitted in the cross-examination that the deceased was driving the RTV at the time of the accident. Thus it is established on record that the deceased used to drive an RTV.

Since, it is established on record that the deceased was working as a driver of RTV in the year 2004, I would assess his income to be at least Rs. 150/- per day though it was claimed to be Rs. 200/- per day by the Appellant No. 1. Taking into account some holidays and Sundays, I would assess his income to be Rs. 4000/- per month.

Even if the deceased''s father i.e. Appellant No. 2 is taken to be not financially dependent, there were eight dependants including the mother i.e Appellant No. 3 and six minor children ( Appellants No. 4 to 9). Therefore a deduction of 1/5th is required to be made towards personal and living expenses in view of the guidelines laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, . The appropriate multiplier would also be ''14'' instead of ''13'', thus the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 5,37,600/- ( Rs. 4000x4/5x12x14). The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of Love and Affection which I would raise to Rs. 25,000/-. The compensation is re-computed as under:-

Compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal

Compensation awarded by this Court

1.

Loss of dependency

Rs. 3,15,458/-

Rs. 5,37,600/- ( Rs. 4000x4/5x12x14)

2.

Love and Affection

Rs. 10,000/-

Rs. 25,000/-

3.

Funeral Expenses

Rs. 10,000/-

Rs. 10,000/-

4.

Expectancy of Life of deceased

Rs. 10,000/-

Rs. 10,000/-

5.

Loss of Consortium

Rs. 10,000/-

Rs. 10,000/-

Total

Rs. 3,55,458/-

Rs. 5,92,600/-

The overall compensation is enhanced from Rs. 3,55,458/- to Rs. 5,92,600/-. The enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,37,142/- shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the enhanced amount in this Court.

The Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the compensation with the Registrar General of this Court within six weeks from today.

Statutory amount shall also be refunded. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.