Urmila Devi and Others vs Jeet Singh and Others

Reva Khetrapal, J.—The Appellants seek enhancement of the compensation awarded to them by the Claims Tribunal by its award dated 14.09.1989. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are that the deceased Dev Karan was sitting on the pillion seat of a motor cycle bearing No. HRP 3706, which was hit by a truck being driven rashly and negligently, as a result of which Dev Karan sustained fatal injuries. He was survived by his widow, three children and parents, who instituted a claim petition claiming compensation for his untimely death from the Respondents No. 1 to 4 - the Respondent No. 1 being the driver of the alleged offending truck, the Respondents No. 2 and 3 being the owners thereof and the Respondent No. 4 being the insurance company with which the said truck was insured.

The learned Claims Tribunal, while deciding the issue pertaining to the amount of compensation to which the Appellants were entitled held that, on the evidence adduced by the Appellants it stood proved on record that the total emoluments of the deceased, who was an employee of DESU, were about Rs. 720/- per month. After making an allowance for the amount that the deceased would have spent upon himself and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Lachhman Singh and Others Vs. Gurmit Kaur and Others, the dependency of the Appellants was assessed at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month. Further, in view of the fact that the deceased Shri Dev Karan was about 33 years of age, the multiplier of 16 was applied by the Claims Tribunal and the total compensation assessed to be in the sum of Rs. 1,15,200/-, i.e., Rs. 600/- x 12 x 16. The Appellants were accordingly held entitled to the aforesaid amount with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till its realization.

Mr. Navneet Goyal, the learned Counsel for the Appellants claims enhancement of this amount principally on two grounds. His first contention is that the learned Tribunal failed to take into account the future prospects of increase in the income of the deceased Dev Karan, who died at a comparatively young age and would have certainly progressed in life. His second contention is that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount whatsoever towards the various heads of non-pecuniary compensation and that the Appellants are accordingly entitled to the grant thereof.

Mr. Pankaj Seth, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 - Insurance Company, though sought to support the award was not able to show any flaw in the aforesaid two contentions of Mr. Goyal. Even otherwise, it being settled law that the future prospects of the deceased must be taken into account while calculating the loss of dependency of his legal representatives, the Appellants deserve an enhanced amount of compensation on this score, apart from the grant of no pecuniary benefits in addition. Thus, taking into account the fact that the deceased was 33 years of age, an addition of 50% must be made to his assessed income. Deducting 1/4th there from in view of the fact that the deceased had six dependents, the loss of dependency per month of the Appellants works out to Rs. 810/-per month, that is, Rs. 720/- plus Rs. 360/- = Rs. 1080/- divided by 4 = Rs. 270/- per month x 3 = Rs. 810/- per month. Thus calculated, the total loss of dependency of the Appellants works out to Rs. 810/- x 12 x 16 = Rs. 1,55,520/-.

Apart from the aforesaid amount of pecuniary damages, the Appellants are held entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,500/- for loss of consortium, another sum of Rs. 2,500/-towards loss of estate and the sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, in all a sum of Rs. 7,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. Thus, the total compensation works out to Rs. 1,62,520/- (that is, Rs. 1,55,520/- plus Rs. 7,000/-) along with interest @ 12; per annum. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid by the Insurance Company to the Appellants within 30 days from today by depositing the aforesaid amount with the Registrar General of this Court.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. CM Nos. 5057/2006 and 16296/2008 also stand disposed of.