Munna Lal Jain and Another vs Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others

G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 6,59,000/- awarded in favour of the Appellants for the death of Rahul Jain, a bachelor who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 12.07.2008. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that on 12.07.2008 at about 5:00 A.M. deceased Rahul Jain along with his friend was returning from Gurgaon to his residence and had reached near village Bhadola, Delhi. The two wheeler was struck by a truck No. RJ-14-2G-5065, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased was removed to Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital where he was declared brought dead.

The Appellants set up a case that the deceased was a self employed person working as a ''Jain Pandit''. He had a large clientele and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. It was stated that he possessed two mobile phones No. 9899570415 and 9311062282; was contributing to three Life Insurance Policies; maintaining two bank accounts which show that a sum of about Rs. 10,000/- was being deposited in the bank accounts.

On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No.RJ-14-2G-5065 by the First Respondent. The deceased''s income was accepted as Rs. 8,000/- per month. Since the deceased was a bachelor, the Claims Tribunal made deduction of 50% towards the deceased''s personal and living expenses, applied the multiplier of ''13'' and awarded a sum of Rs. 6,24,000/- towards the loss of dependency. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- was awarded towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss to estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses.

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

(i) The Appellants produced sufficient evidence to prove that the deceased had a handsome income. The Appellants'' case that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month should have been accepted.

(ii) No addition was made towards future prospects in spite of the fact that the deceased was a young boy, aged 30 years.

I have before me the Trial Court Record. The First Appellant testified that his deceased son (Satender Kumar Jain) was self employed as a "Pandit". He used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month. He used to perform religious rituals like ''Mandir Shilanyas'', Vedi Pratistha, Moorti (Idol) Pran Pratistha, ''Panch Kalyanak'', ''Vidhans'', ''Puja & Path'' etc. in Jain temples in Delhi and NCR. His son used to get 10-15 such assignments every month and would get a minimum of Rs. 1100/- per assignment. He would get Rs. 3,300/- for some of the assignments. He proved deceased''s mobile bills Ex. PW-1/22 (collectively) to show that his monthly expenditure of each of the mobile phones was Rs. 7,00/- to Rs. 8,00/- per month. The First Appellant proved the pass book of the Savings Account No. 27200100004882 of Bank of Baroda, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi and a Savings Bank Account No. 10934 of Allahabad Bank, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh. He also proved three LIC policies Ex. PW-1/22 (collectively) to show that he used to pay a premium of Rs. 232/- quarterly, Rs. 960/- yearly and Rs. 1656/- quarterly.

The Appellants also produced PW-4 Kapil Jain, PW-5 Jinesh Jain and PW-6 Ashok Kumar Jain to prove that religious functions were performed at their places by the deceased. It was also proved that the deceased purchased a motor cycle for Rs. 47,500/- vide bill Ex. PW-1/2.

The Claims Tribunal took into consideration all this evidence and assessed the deceased''s income to be Rs. 8,000/- per month. Any income beyond Rs. 1,50,000/- was subject to income tax in the Assessment Year 2009-10. Although, the deceased had a PAN card yet, no evidence was produced that the deceased was paying any income tax. At the same time from the oral and documentary evidence, it is established that the deceased Satender Kumar Jain had sufficient income to maintain two mobile phones, to purchase a motor cycle and to maintain it and to have three insurance policies whose annual premium was over Rs. 15,000/- per annum. He was having an expenditure of Rs. 14,00/- to Rs. 15,00/- per month on the mobile phones. Thus, an income of Rs. 8,000/- taken by the Claims Tribunal appears to be on the lower side. Keeping in view the above stated facts, I would take his income to be Rs. 12,000/- per month.

In the absence of any evidence with regard to the future prospects, the Appellants are entitled to an increase of 30% towards inflation on the basis of judgment of the Supreme Court in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, , relied on and discussed by this Court in Rakhi v. Satish Kumar & Ors. (MAC. APP. 390/2011) decided on 16.07.2012.

The loss of dependency thus comes to Rs. 12,16,800/- ( Rs. 12,000/- + 30% x 1/2 x 12 x 13).

I would further make an award of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/- each towards loss to estate and funeral expenses.

No other contention has been raised.

The overall compensation comes to Rs. 12,61,800/-. Thus, there is enhancement of Rs. 6,02,800/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment.

Respondent No. 3 United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court, New Delhi within six weeks.

25% of the enhanced compensation shall be payable to the First Appellant. Rest 75% shall go to the second Appellant (the deceased''s mother).

80% of the enhanced compensation shall be held in fixed deposit for a period of two years, four years, six years and eight years. Rest 20% shall be disbursed on deposit.

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