Back
2007 Supreme(Del) 1063
High Court Of Delhi
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
MOHINDER KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
SUSHIL KUMAR - Respondents
F. A. O. 257 Of 1994
Decided On : 05/16/2007
H.K.Kataria, O.P.Goyal
The main legal point established is the proper determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, focusing on loss of dependency, future increase in earnings, and the application of an appropriate multiplier.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Claim - Section 110-A, Section 92-A - [1939 Act, Section 110-A, Section 92-A] - The court discussed the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, focusing on loss of dependency, future increase in earnings, and the application of multiplier for calculating compensation. The court referred to the judgment in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer to justify the adoption of a multiplier of 10 for the calculation of total loss of dependency.
Fact of the Case:
Deceased died in a road accident, and the parents filed a claim petition for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The tribunal awarded compensation, but the parents appealed for enhancement due to errors in the determination of loss of dependency.
Finding of the Court:
The court found faults in the tribunal's determination of loss of dependency, future increase in earnings, and the application of the multiplier. It enhanced the compensation and directed payment with interest to the mother of the deceased.
Issues: Determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, errors in the tribunal's award, and the application of interest rates for enhanced compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of future increase in earnings, dependency of family members, and the appropriate multiplier for calculating compensation. It also referred to a relevant judgment to justify the adoption of a specific multiplier.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, enhanced the compensation, directed payment with interest to the mother of the deceased, and disposed of the appeal without costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
( 1 ) ON 22. 12. 87, deceased Satish Kumar, aged 21 years, died in a road accident involving bus No. HYE 1278. He was survived by his parents, 2 brothers and 2 sisters.
( 2 ) PARENTS of the deceased filed a claim petition under section 110-A read with section 92-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 on account of death of the deceased in the said road accident.
( 3 ) VIDE award dated 13. 7. 1994, learned tribunal awarded compensation in sum of rs. 86,400 to the parents of the deceased.
( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal, parents of the deceased have filed the present appeal praying for enhancement of compensation.
( 5 ) UNFORTUNATELY, father of the deceased died during the pendency of the present appeal. His legal heirs were brought on record.
( 6 ) SINCE the only issue involved in the appeal relates to the quantum of compensation, i shall be noting such facts as are relevant for adjudication of the said issue.
( 7 ) DECEASED was aged 21 years as on the date of the accident.
( 8 ) FATHER and mother of the deceased were aged 45 years and 41 years respectively at the time of accident.
( 9 ) DECEASED was self-employed at the time of accident. He was earning his livelihood by working as TSR driver.
( 10 ) NOTING the testimony of the father of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has determined income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs. 1,500 per month.
( 11 ) NOTING that deceased was unmarried at the time of accident, for purposes of calculating loss of dependency, Claims tribunal has divided period of dependency of parents into 2.
( 12 ) FIRST period taken by the Tribunal is the period of 4 years during which the deceased would have remained unmarried. Tribunal has assumed that during this period of 4 years, deceased would have spent major portion of his earnings on his parents and on this assumption deduced 1/4th of the earnings towards personal spending of the deceased. Thus, for this period of 4 years, loss of dependency has been determined by Claims Tribunal at Rs. 57,600 (Rs. 1,500 x 12 x 4 x 80/100 ).
( 13 ) SECOND period taken by the Tribunal is the period of 12 years during which the deceased would have married and had his own family. Tribunal has assumed that during this period of 12 years, deceased would have spent major portion of his earnings on his own family. The Tribunal further assumed that during this period deceased would have spent only 13 per cent of his income on his parents. Thus, for this period of 4 years, loss of dependency has been determined by Tribunal at rs. 28,800 (Rs. 1,500 x 12 x 12 x 13/100 ).
( 14 ) AFTER perusing the award, I find award is faulty on two counts.
( 15 ) WHILE determining loss of dependency, tribunal has erred in ignoring the prospects of future increase in the income of the deceased. Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that wages increase from time to time to equalise fall in purchasing power of rupee.
( 16 ) DECEASED was aged 21 years as on the date of accident. It could reasonably be expected that he would have worked till the age of 60. Meaning thereby, the deceased would have worked for another 39 years.
( 17 ) FUTURE increase in earnings of the deceased can be gauged from the fact that to neutralise rise in inflation, cost of living and fall in the purchasing power of rupee, the minimum wages virtually double after every 10 years. Thus, considering that had the deceased been alive, he would have worked for another 39 years, it could reasonably be assumed that earnings of the deceased would have at least tripled by the time he would have left gainful employment. Thus, mean average income of the deceased comes to Rs. 3,000. [rs. 1,500 + rs. 4,500 (3 times increase in income) -2].
( 18 ) THE Tribunal has further erred in assuming that once deceased would have married, he would have spent only 13 per cent of his income on his parents.
( 19 ) IT is relevant t
