Suman Akbar & Ors v. The Commissioner of Police & O

V.B.GUPTA, J. rb

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI MAC. App. No.647/2006 % Judgment reserved on: 24th November, 2009 Judgment delivered on: 30th November, 2009 1. Smt. Suman Akbar, Wd/O. Late Mohd. Akbar @ Francis Peter. R/o. House of Shri S.K. Chauhan, Gali No.18B, Saadh Nagar Part II, Palam Colony, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi-110 047. 2. Mrs. Anita W/o. Shri Vinay Joseph, D/o. Late Mohd. Akbar @ Francis Peter, R/o. 15/303, Kariappa Marg, Delhi Cantt-10. 3. Ms. Alka wife of Shri Arack D/o. Late Mohd. Akbar @ Francis Peter, R/o. C/o. Smt. Suman Akbar, Gali No.18B, Saadh Nagar Part II, Palam Colony, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi-110 047. 4. Mrs. Alveen S/o. Late Mohd. Akbar @ Francis Peter, R/o. House of Shri S.K. Chauhan, Gali No.18B, Saadh Nagar Part II, Palam Colony, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi-110 047. ….Appellants Through: Mr. Sanjay Mishra with Ms. Hemangi Saikia, Advs. Versus 1. Commissioner of Police, Police Head Quarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Constable Nirander Singh No.596/SW, Staff South West, Sadar Bazar, Police Station, Delhi Cantt. 3. The Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi Through its Chief Secretary, 5, Shamnath Marg, Delhi-54. (earlier the petition was filed against the Delhi Administration) …Respondents. Through: Ms. Sonia Sharma with Mr. Aslam Mirza, Advs. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. By way of this appeal appellants are seeking enhancement of compensation amount to Rs.4 lacs. 2. Brief facts of this case are that on 12th February, 1989 deceased Mhd. Akbar @ Francis Peter died in a road accident. The offending vehicle which is Gypsy police Van, was being driven by respondent No.2. 3. Vide judgment dated 26th April, 2006, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short as "Tribunal"), awarded compensation amounting to Rs.1,42,500/- along with 12% interest from the date of filing of the petition till realization. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, claimants have filed the present appeal seeking enhanced compensation. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for appellants that though Tribunal considered the age of deceased at the time of accident to be 45 years but erred in adopting the multiplier of 13 years applicable to the person aged 45 years but not exceeding 50 years. Tribunal ought to have taken the multiplier of 15 as per second Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short as "Act") which is applicable when the person dies at the age of 40 years but not exceeding 45 years. 6. Second contention is that deceased was earning Rs.1800/- per month as per the salary certificate while Tribunal has taken monthly income as Rs.825 per month only. 7. Thirdly, Tribunal deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, ignoring the fact that deceased was having four legal heirs. Under these circumstances, 1/4th amount should have been deducted towards personal expenses. 8. On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for respondents that no proof of age was submitted by the appellant with regard to the age of deceased. As per appellants own case, age of deceased was 45 years. So, under these circumstances, Tribunal correctly applied the multiplier of 13 years, as per second Schedule of the Act. 9. Coming to the income of the deceased, it is contended that monthly income of deceased has been assessed as Rs.825/- per month as per salary certificate. Tribunal has also taken into account the future advancement prospects and as such the Tribunal correctly calculated the compensation. 10. Lastly, it is contended that deduction of 1/3rd is as per standard laid down by the Supreme Court and compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair. 11. As per salary certificate Ex. PX, deceased was employed as a driver and was being paid salary of Rs.825/- per month. During the month of January 1989, he was also paid Rs. 944/- as overtime