Rameshwari & Ors v. D.T.C. & Ors

JUDGMENT

¶1The appellants have challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.8,60,080/- has been awarded to the appellants. The appellants seek enhancement of the award amount.

¶2The accident dated 2nd January, 2006 resulted in the death of Satbir Singh. The deceased was survived by his widow, two minor sons, one minor daughter and parents who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal.

¶3The deceased was aged about 43 years at the time of the accident and was working as an electrician with Delhi Jal

Board drawing a gross salary of Rs.14,203/- per month. The Claims Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.82,008/- per annum (Rs.6,834/- per month) by taking the average of Rs.74,016/- (Rs.6,168 x 12) + Rs.90,000/-, deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 15 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs.8,20,080/-. Rs.10,000/- has been awarded towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards expectancy of the life of the deceased and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation awarded is Rs.8,60,080/-.

¶4The learned counsel for the appellants has urged the following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-

(i) The income of the deceased be taken as Rs.14,203/- per month.

(ii) 50% be added towards future prospects.

(iii) The personal expenses of the deceased be reduced from 1/3rd to 1/4th.

(iv) The compensation be awarded for loss of estate.

¶5The learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the multiplier is liable to be reduced from 15 to 14 and the future prospects be taken into consideration by adding 30% in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) Scale 129.

¶6The salary of the deceased was proved by certificate – Ex.PW2/1 according to which the salary of the deceased at the

time of the accident was Rs.14,203/- per month. The travelling allowance of Rs.100/- is deducted and the income of the deceased for computation of compensation is taken to be Rs.14,103/- (Rs.14,203 – Rs.100) per month. The deceased was aged 43 years at the time of the accident and was survived by six legal representatives. In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), 30% is to be added towards future prospects, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the multiplier of 14 has to be applied. Following the aforesaid judgment, 30% is added towards the future prospects, 1/4th is deducted towards the personal expenses and the multiplier is reduced from 15 to 14. The Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for loss of estate.

However, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards expectancy of life of the deceased which is not a permissible head. The compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards expectancy of life is treated as compensation for loss of estate.

¶7The learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the Income Tax has to be deducted from the income of the deceased. The Accounts Department of this Court has checked this aspect and has opined that the Income Tax limit in the year 2005-06 was Rs.1,00,000/- and after deduction of maximum saving of Rs.1,00,000/-, the income of the deceased would be Rs.69,236/- [Rs.1,69,236 (Rs.14,103 x 12) – Rs.1,00,000] which is below the taxable limit. As such, no

Income Tax is deducted from the income of the deceased.

¶8Taking the income of the deceased as Rs.14,103/- per month, adding 30% towards future prospects, deducting 1/4th towards his personal expenses, applying the multiplier of 14, adding Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, the total compensation is computed to be Rs.23,50,071/- [(Rs.14,103 + 30% of Rs.14,103) x 12 x 3/4 x 14) + Rs.10,000 + Rs.10,000 + Rs.10,000 + Rs.10,000].

¶9The appeal is allowed and the award amount is enhanced from Rs.8,60,080/- to Rs.23,50,071/- along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition up to the date of notice of deposit under Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶10The enhanced award amount along with interest be deposited by respondent No.3 with UCO Bank A/c Rameshwari, Delhi High Court Branch through Mr. M.M. Tandon, Member-Retail Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi (Mobile No. 09310356400) within 30 days.

¶11Appellants No.5 and 6 have expired during the pendency of this appeal and their shares have devolved upon appellants No.1 to 4. Appellants No.1 to 4 are substituted in place of appellants No.5 and 6.

¶12Upon the enhanced award amount being deposited, UCO Bank is directed to release 10% of the amount to appellant No.1 by transferring the same to her Saving Bank Account.

The remaining amount be kept in fixed deposit in the following manner:-

(i) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the award amount in the name of appellant No.2 for a period of one year.

(ii) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the award amount in the name of appellant No.3 for a period of two years.

(iii) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the award amount in the name of appellant No.1 for a period of three years.

(iv) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the award amount in the name of appellant No.4 for a period of four years.

(v) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the award amount in the name of appellant No.2 for a period of five years.

(vi) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the award amount in the name of appellant No.3 for a period of six years.

(vii) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the award amount in the name of appellant No.4 for a period of seven years.

(viii) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the award amount in the name of appellant No.1 for a period of eight years.

(ix) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the award

amount in the name of appellant No.1 for a period of nine years.

¶13The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the Savings Account of appellant No.1.

¶14Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to appellant No.1 after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo Identity Card to appellants No.1 to 4 to facilitate identity.

¶15No cheque book be issued to appellants No.1 without the permission of this Court.

¶16The Bank shall issue Fixed Deposit Pass Book instead of the FDRs to appellant No.1 and the maturity amount of the FDRs be automatically credited to the Saving Bank Account of the beneficiary at the end of the FDR.

¶17No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.

¶18Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.

¶19On the request of appellant No.1, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of UCO Bank according to the convenience of appellant No.1.

¶20Appellants No.1 to 4 shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Mr. M.M. Tandon, Member-Retail Team,

UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi (Mobile No. 09310356400).

¶21Copy of the order be given dasti to counsel for both the parties under signatures of the Court Master.

¶22Copy of this order be also sent to Mr. M.M. Tandon, Member-Retail Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi (Mobile No. 09310356400) through the UCO Bank, High Court Branch under the signature of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J June 1, 2010

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of reserve: 25th March, 2010 % Date of Decision: 1st June, 2010 RAMESHWARI & ORS ..... Appellants Through : Mr. Navneet Goyal and Mr. Varun Kumar, Advs. versus D.T.C. & ORS ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Ataul Haque, Adv.for R-1. Mr. Pradeep Gaur and Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, Advs. for R-3. CORAM :- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may YES be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES 3. Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest?