Sudesh Mahajan and Others vs Anil Azad and Others

G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 2,38,255/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Claims Tribunal) in favour of the Appellant for the death of Raj Pal Mahajan who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 28.11.2005. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver, owner or the insurer of offending vehicle, the finding on negligence has attained finality.

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

(i) After his retirement, the deceased was working as an Accountant. As per Income Tax Return(ITR) Ex.PW1/13 and computation of income filed along with ITR for the A.Y. 2005-06, the Appellant had an income of Rs. 67,589/- from pension and Rs. 2,51,277/- from his job as an accountant in addition to interest income of Rs. 35,766/-. It is stated that income from professional work and pension should have been taken into consideration

(ii) The compensation awarded towards non-pecuniary damages is on the lower side.

(iii) The deceased had four dependants including two married daughters; deductions towards personal and living expenses should have been 1/4 instead of 1/3 made by the Claims Tribunal.

On the other hand, Mr. Pradeep Gaur, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 National Insurance Company states that the deceased''s son was financially not dependent and that two daughters were already married. Therefore, the deduction towards personal and living expenses ought to have been 50% instead of 1/3 taken by the Claims Tribunal.

On the basis of the Income Tax Return Ex.PW1/13, it is proved that the deceased had an income Rs. 3,18,866/- excluding the income from interest on the NSCs.

Appellant No. 2 Sanjeev Mahajan was working as a Salesman and had an income of Rs. 4,000/- per month, thus he was also partially depended on the deceased. Apart from this, the deceased had responsibility of two married daughters to give them conventional gifts on festivals. In the circumstances, the deduction of 1/3 taken by the Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be on the lower side. The deduction of 1/3 was, in the circumstances, just and reasonable.

In view of the above discussion, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 9,46,220/-( Rs. 318866/- - 35,000/-(Income Tax) x 2/3 x 5).

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

The compensation is thus enhanced by Rs. 7,62,965/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of this Appeal till its payment. 10% of the enhanced compensation shall be payable to each of the Appellants No. 2 & 3 and Respondent No. 3. Rest 70% shall enure for the benefit of Appellant No. 1. 80% of the compensation awarded to the Appellant No. 1 shall be held in fixed deposit for a period of two years and three years in equal proportion and rest shall be released to her on deposit. The compensation payable to Appellants No. 2 & 3 and Respondent No. 3 shall be released on deposit.

The enhanced compensation of Rs. 7,62,965/- along with interest shall be deposited in the name of the Appellants in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi Branch within six weeks.

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