Smt. Suti Devi and Others vs Sh. Satyavir and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—By way of the present appeal the appellants seek to challenge the impugned award dated 23.02.2000 on the ground that the Tribunal has not correctly assessed the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has also not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses and the loss of estate.

Before adverting to deal with the contentions raised by counsel for the appellant, it would be appropriate to give brief facts of the case as under:

On 1.5.89 at about 3.45 p.m., Sh. Banwari Lal was coming from his office at Central Ordinance Depot, Delhi Cantt. He was coming on foot and was walking on the extreme left side of the road. When he reached a place near Kumar Restaurant on the Ring Road at Naraina Village, a truck bearing registration No. DEL 3059 came from Dhaula Kuan side and hit another truck bearing registration No. DHG 8550. The aforesaid truck was overloaded with gas cylinders and was also coming from Dhaula Kuan''s direction. As a result the truck bearing registration No. DHG 8550 turned turtle and fell on the left side of the road. Sh.Banwari Lal who was walking along side the road came underneath the aforesaid truck and received multiple injuries. Two scooters parked on the left side of the road also came under the aforesaid truck. Sh.Banwari Lal was removed to the Army Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt. where he died after 2/3 days because of the injuries received in the accident.

Nobody has been appearing from the opposite side. This is despite the fact that the New India Assurance Company is duly represented by the designated counsel, Mr. Kamal Chaudhary, as well as by a panel counsel The regular matters cannot be delayed just on account of the absence of the lawyers representing the Insurance Company.

I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. Counsel for the appellants states that the deceased was employed as labourer with the Central Ordinance Depot and PW-4 Achher Kumar had duly proved his income certificate on record. The deceased was of 57 years of age at the time of the accident and besides salary he was also drawing a pension of Rs. 375/- being an Ex-service man. Counsel further contends that the deceased is survived by his widow, appellant No. 1, his sons, appellants No. 2 and 3 and his daughter, appellant No. 4. The contention of counsel for the appellants is that no amount has been awarded in favour of his widow towards the loss of consortium, even funeral expenses have not been awarded to the appellants and similarly, no compensation has been awarded for loss of estate. Perusal of the award shows that one Mr. Banwari Lal had died in a road accident by truck bearing Registration No. DEL-3059. The deceased who was a pedestrian, received multiple injuries due to accident. The appellants have duly proved on record that he was working as labourer in the Centralance Depot, Delhi Cantt, Delhi wherefrom he was getting a salary of Rs. 1400/- per month. Besides the said salary the deceased was also earning an additional amount of Rs. 375/- towards pension being an Ex-service man. The deceased was to retire on 31.10.1989 i.e. within a period of about six months from the date of accident. Considering the retirement age of the deceased the Tribunal has awarded a lump sum award of Rs. 55,000/- towards loss of financial dependence. It is correct that as on the relevant date of accident the age of retirement was 58 years and that reason prevailed on the Tribunal to grant a lump sum amount of Rs. 55,000/- instead of considering the loss of financial dependence of the appellants by appropriate multiplier. The deceased was employed as labourer and in my view it cannot be said that after reaching the age of superannuation the deceased would not seek employment for doing the said job. The deceased was of 57 years of age on the relevant date of the accident and since the age of the dependent members is not borne out from the record, therefore, the age of the deceased itself can be taken into consideration for applying the appropriate multiplier. The appropriate multiplier as laid in the second schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act between the age of 55 and 60 years is 8. The deceased was earlier earning an amount of Rs. 21,300/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd of the same towards personal expenses, the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs. 14,200/- p.a. Multiplying the same with the multiplier of 8 the total financial loss would come to Rs. 1,13,600/-. Since the Tribunal has not awarded the amount towards the loss of consortium, the same is now awarded in favour of the appellant in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, funeral expenses for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and loss of estate Rs. 5000/- In all, total compensation of Rs. 1,78,600/- is awarded in favour of the appellants. The differential amount of the compensation shall now be paid by the respondents with upto date interest from the date of filing of the petition till realisation @ 7.5% per annum.

With the above directions, the appeal stands disposed of.