Back
2010 Supreme(Raj) 70
2010(2) CCR 807 (Delhi)
(Delhi High Court)
Keith Rowe Vs. Prashant Sagar & Ors. (Midha, J.)
HON'BLE J.R. MIDHA, J.
Keith Rowe
Versus
Prashant Sagar & Ors.
MAC.APP.No.601/2007, decided on 15.01.2010
Rajesh Yadav and Ms. Ruchira V. Arora, for Appellant;
Atul Nanda and Sanjay Bhardwaj, for Respondents
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Secs. 168 & 173 — Compensation — Death of 31 years issueless Assistant Executive of Private Ltd. Co. getting salary of Rs. 20,000/- monthly — Income proved by appointment letter and income tax return — Tribunal took Rs. 13,000/- monthly income for computation of loss of dependency after deductions — Multiplier of 12 applied — Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,93,000/- as total compensation — Future prospects of deceased not taken into consideration — No amount awarded for loss of love and affection — Appeal for enhancement of award amount — Held — Appellant was not financially dependent upon deceased, therefore, he was not entitle to compensation to loss of estate — 1/3 income of deceased is taken into consideration for computation of loss of estate because appellant and deceased were living together — According to age of appellant appropriate multiplier is 15 — 50% should be added for future prospects in income of deceased — Accordingly loss of estate is computed Rs. (13,000 + Rs. 6,500 x 1/3 x 15 x 12) = 11,70,000/- — Appellant is also entitled to Rs. 35,000/- for loss of consortium, for loss of love and affection and for funeral expenses — Accordingly total compensation awarded Rs. 12,05,000/- — Award modified. (Paras 9 to 13)
eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk;sa 168 ,oa 173 & izfrdj & 20]000@- #i;s ekfld osru izkIr djus okyh 31 o"khZ; larkughu izkbosV fyfeVsM daiuh dh lgk;d dk;Zikyd dh e`R;q & vk; dj fooj.kh ,oa fu;qfDr i= }kjk vk; lkfcr dh xbZ & vf/kdj.k us dVkSrh ds i'pkr vkf{krk dh {kfr dh x.kuk gsrq ekfld vk; 13]000@- #i;s fy;k & 12 dk xq.kd iz;qDr fd;k & vf/kdj.k us dqy izfrdj ds :i esa 4]93]000@- #i;s vf/kfuf.kZr fd;s & e`rdk dh Hkkoh izR;k'kkvksa dks fopkj esa ugha fy;k x;k & I;kj ,oa Lusg dh {kfr gsrq jkf'k vf/kfuf.kZr ugha dh xbZ & vf/kfu.kZ; jkf'k dh vfHko`f) gsrq vihy & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vihykFkhZ foRrh; :I ls e`rdk ij vkfJr ugha Fkk vr% og vkfJrk dh gkfu gsrq izfrdj dk gdnkj ugha Fkk & vihykFkhZ laink dh {kfr dk gdnkj gS & laink dh gkfu dh x.kuk gsrq e`rdk dk 1@3 vk; fopkj esa fy;k D;ksafd vihykFkhZ ,oa e`rdk ,d lkFk jgrs Fks & vihykFkhZ dh vk;q ds vuqlkj mfpr xq.kd 15 gS & e`rdk dh vk; esa Hkkoh izR;k'kkvksa gsrq 50% tksM+k tkuk pkfg;s & rn~uqlkj laink dh gkfu ¼13000@- #i;s + 6]500@- #i;s x 1@3 x 15 x 12 ½ = 11]70]000@- #i;s x.kuk dh & vihykFkhZ 35]000@- #i;s lgp;Z dh {kfr I;kj ,oa Lusg dh {kfr ,oa nkg laLdkj ds [kpZ gsrq Hkh gdnkj gS & rn~uqlkj dqy izfrdj 12]05]000@- #i;s vf/kfuf.kZr fd;k & vf/kfu.kZ; mikUrfjr fd;kA ¼in la[;k 9 ls 13½
vihy Lohdkj dhA
2. The accident dated 11th February, 2001 resulted in the death of Parminder Kaur Rowe. The deceased was survived by her husband who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.
3. The deceased was aged 31 years at the time of the accident. The appellant is her husband who was about 38 years at the time of the accident. There are no children out of the wedlock of the appellant and the deceased. The deceased was working as Executive Assistant with M/s. Invensys India Private Ltd. at a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-. The employment of the deceased was proved by appointment letter dated 9th May, 2000 - Ex.PW-1/13. Form-16 dated 30th April, 2001 relating to the Income Tax deducted by the employer was proved as Ex.PW-1/14. The appellant claimed that the deceased was also Director in the Private Limited Company of the appellant named H.R. Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax returns of M/s. H.R. Solutions Pvt. Ltd. were proved as Ex.PW-1/16 to Ex.PW-1/18. However, no proof of the income of the deceased from M/s. H.R. Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was placed before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, therefore, took the income of the deceased after deductions to be Rs.13,000/- on the basis of the appointment letter Ex.PW-1/13. The appellant was not dependent upon the deceased and the learned Tribunal took the loss of estate of the appellant as 1/4 of the income of the deceased and applied the multiplier of 12 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs.4,68,000/-. Rs.15,000/- have been awarded towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation awarded is Rs.4,93,000/-.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged the following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-
(i) The income of the deceased be taken to be Rs.35,000/- per month.
(ii) The future prospects of the deceased be taken into consideration.
(iii) The loss of estate be taken to be 1/2 of the income of the deceased.
(iv) The multiplier be enhanced from 12 to 16.
(v) The compensation be awarded for loss of love and affection.
(vi) The rate of interest be enhanced from 7% to 7.5%.
5. The learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased to be Rs.13,000/- on the basis of the appointment letter, Ex.PW-1/13. As per Ex.PW-1/13, the deceased was getting following emoluments:-
(i) Basic Salary - Rs. 9,000/- per month
(ii) H.R.A. - Rs. 4,000/- per month
(iii) LTC - Rs. 10,000/- per month
(iv) Reimbursement of actual medical expenses - Rs. 15,000/- per annum.
(v) Reimbursement of petrol and vehicle maintenance - up to Rs. 30,000/- per annum.
6. The learned Tribunal has taken the basic salary and H.R.A into consideration. The finding of the learned Tribunal as to the income of the deceased to be Rs.13,000/- per month is correct and is upheld.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was also assisting her husband in H.R. Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in which the deceased was a Director. However, no proof of income in this regard has been filed by the appellant and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the income of the deceased from H.R. Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
8. The learned Tribunal has not taken the future prospects into consideration. The deceased had a permanent employment and was employed with M/s. Invensys India Private Ltd. as Executive Assistant since 9th May, 2000 and she continued in the employment till the date of her death on 10th/11th February, 2001. As per the appointment letter, the probation period of the deceased was six months which was completed on 9th November, 2000 and, therefore, the employment of the deceased was permanent and 50% of her income is added as future prospects following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corp
