$~1

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 01.09.2023

+

MAC.APP. 83/2017

USHA & ORS

..... Appellants

Through:

Mr.Anuj Arora, Adv.

versus

AKBAR & ORS (UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD)

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr.Ravi Sabharwal, Adv for R-3

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

1.

This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging

the Award dated 26.09.2016 passed by the learned Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, North-East District, Karkardooma

Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned ‘Tribunal’)

in MACT No. 52/2014 and MACT New No. 15208/2015 titled

Smt. Usha & Ors. v. Akbar & Ors..

2.

The limited challenge of the appellants, who were the

claimants before the learned Tribunal, are as under:-

a)

That the learned Tribunal has erred in adopting the

multiplier dependent on the age of the mother of the

deceased, rather than on the age of the deceased. The

learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

multiplier has to be based on the age of the deceased. He

submits that, in the present case, the deceased was aged

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL

Signing Date:04.09.2023

18:34:06

Signature Not Verified

around 28 years on the date of the accident, and,

therefore, the multiplier to be adopted should have been

17 instead of 13, which has been adopted by the learned

Tribunal;

b)

That the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the

income of the deceased at only Rs.23,992/- per month.

Drawing reference to the pay-slips issued by SMCC

Construction India Limited, where the deceased was

working at the time of the accident, for the months of

January 2014 and February 2014, he submits that while

for January 2014, the deceased earned a gross income of

Rs.85,442/- per month; in the month of February 2014,

his gross pay was Rs.59,797/-. The learned counsel for

the appellants also draws my attention to Form No. 16

(TDS certificate) of the deceased, to submit that the said

certificate shows the income of the deceased as

Rs.9,28,967/- per annum, on which TDS has been

deducted and deposited by the employer. He submits that,

therefore, the income of the deceased should have been

taken at a minimum of Rs.10,00,000/- per annum.

3.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent

no.3, while not disputing that the learned Tribunal has erred in

taking the multiplier based on the age of the mother of the

deceased, and admitting that the correct multiplier of 17 should

have been adopted as per the age of the deceased, disputes the

submission of the learned counsel for the appellants on the

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL

Signing Date:04.09.2023

18:34:06

Signature Not Verified

income of the deceased to be taken into account. He submits

that the salary slip for the month of February 2014 of the

deceased clearly shows his Basic Salary as only Rs.14,100/-,

with certain other allowances added to it to make the Gross Pay.

He submits that allowances like Conveyance Allowance,

Medical Reimbursement, LTA, etc., are not to be added to the

income of the deceased, as these allowances are personal in

nature to the deceased.

4.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned

counsels for the parties.

5.

On the first aspect of the multiplier to be adopted, there

cannot be a dispute that the learned Tribunal has erred in

adopting the multiplier based on the age of the mother of the

deceased while awarding compensation. In view of the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and

Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6

SCC 121, it was the age of the deceased which should have

been taken into consideration for determining the relevant

multiplier. The deceased was aged around 28 years on the date

of the accident, therefore, the correct multiplier to be adopted

should have been 17. The Impugned Award shall stand

modified accordingly.

6.

On the issue of the income of