Neetu Khubchandani & Ors v. Seth Auto Services Station & Anr

JUDGMENT lORAIT

¶1fhe appellantshave challengedthe impugnedjudgmentand decree dated 15 December, 2014 whereby the learned Trial Court awarded compensationofRs.8,00,000/-to the appellants. The appellantsare seeking enhancementof the compensationamount. On 22 July, 1991 at about 3.45 P.M., the deceased Manohar visited IndianOil PetrolPump near GangaRam Hospitalfor gettingpetrolfilled up Page1ofS Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared the digital data is as per the physical file in his two wheeler scooter when it started raining heavily whereupon the deceased took shelter under a shed in the petrol pump. The wall of the petrol pump collapsed which resulted into the grievous injuries to the deceasedon his head whereuponhe was shiftedto Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and he collapsed at about 5 P.M.

¶3The deceased was aged about 43 years at the time of his death and was survivedby his widow,two sons, a daughterand fatherwho filed a suit for recoveryofcompensationofRs.15,00,000/-.The deceasedwas carrying on the business of repair of the air conditioners. The learned Trial Court took his income as Rs.50,000/- per annum, deducted 1/3'"'' towards his personalexpensesand awardedcompensationofRs.8,00,000/-.The learned Trial Court awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the judgment.

¶4Learnedcounselfor the appellantshas urgedon the followinggrounds at the time of hearing:

(i) The future prospects of the deceased have not been taken into consideration.

(ii) The personal expenses of the deceased have been taken as 1/3'^'^ instead of 1/4"^.

(iii) The compensation has not been awarded towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.

(iv) The interest should have been awarded @ 9% per annum. , 5. The appellants are entitled to just compensation under Sections lA and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1885 which has to be computed according to the multiplier method. Reference may be made to Gobald Motor Service Ltd. V. Veluswami, 1962 (1) SCR 929, Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole, AIR 1969 SC 128, Ishwar Devi Malik, v. Union of India, ILR (1968) 1 Delhi 59, Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, AIR 1979 P&H 50, Bir Singh v. Hashi Rashi Banerjee, AIR 1956 Cal. 555. The multiplier method has been accepted as legally sound method for determining compensation in death cases by the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197; Municipal Corporation of Delhi V. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, AIR 2012 SC 100 and Delhi High Court in Jaipur Golden Gas Victims Association v. Union of India, 164 (2009) DLT 346; Nagrik Sangarsh Samiti v. Union of India, ILR (2010) 4 Del 293; Ram Kishore v. MCD, 2007 (97) DRJ 445; Ashok Sharma v. Union ofIndia, 2009 ACJ 1063.

¶6In Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (supra), a fire broke out in a factory in which sixty people died and one hundred and thirteen got injured. The Supreme Court awarded compensation to the victims on the basis of the multiplier method.

¶7In Jaipur Golden Gas VictimsAssociation v. Union ofIndia (supra), the Division Bench of this Court awarded compensation to the victims of JaipurGoldenFire Tragedyby applyingthe multipliermethod.

¶8In Ashok Sharma v. Union of India (supra), six children lost their lives by drowning during an annual training camp of NCC on account of negligenceon the part of respondents. The compensationwas awardedby applying the multiplier method.

¶9Thecompensationindeathcasesaccordingto the multipliermethodis based on the pecuniaryloss caused to the dependantsby the death of the victim of the road accident. The dependency of the dependants is Page3of8 , I ) ^ determined by taking the annual earning of the deceased at the time of the accident. Thereafter, effect is given to the future prospects of the deceased. After the income of the deceased is established, the deduction is made towards the personal expenses of the deceased which he would have spent on himself. If the deceased was unmarried, normally 50% of the income is deducted towards his personal expenses. If the deceased was married and leaves behind two to three dependents, l/3rd deduction is made; if the deceasedhas left behind four to six family members, deductionof 1/4'^ of his income is made and where the number of dependent family members exceeds six, the deduction of l/5th of the income is made. The remaining amount of income after deduction of personal expenses is taken to be the loss of dependency to the family members which is multiplied by 12 to determine the annual loss of dependency. The annual loss of dependency of the dependants of the deceased is multiplied by the multiplier according to the age of the deceased or claimant whichever is higher. A table of multiplier is given in Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 but there was some error in the said table which has been corrected by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Sarla Verma v. DTC, 2009 ACJ 1298.

¶10The principlesrelatingto computationof compensationby multiplier method are summarized as under:

10.1 Multiplier Age of the deceased Multiplier (in ycnrs) Upto 15 15-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36 -40 41-45 Page4of8 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 Above 65

10.2 Deduction for Personal and Living Expenses

10.2.1 Deceased - unmarried

(i) Deduction towards personal expenses.

(ii) Deduction where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased.

10.2.2 Deceased - married : 1/2(50%)

(i) 2 do dependent •family members.

(ii) to dependent family members.

(ill) More than 6 family members

10.3 Future Prospects

(i) Below 40 years of age

(ii). Between 40 - 50 years

(iii). More than 50 years 1/3'"''(33.33%) 1/3'^'' deduction personal expenses. 1/4* deduction personal expenses. 1/5* deduction personal expenses. towards towards towards 50% towards future prospects. 30% towards future prospects. No addition for future prospects.

¶11Applying the aforesaid well settled principles of law to the present case, the findings of this Court are as under: -

11.1 The deceased was aged 43 years at the time of the accident and therefore 30% is added towards the future prospects and the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.65,000/- (Rs.50,000 + 30%) per annum. RFA2 76/2015

11.2 The deceased has left behind five dependant family members and, therefore, the appropriate deduction towards personal expenses is taken as 1/4 instead of 1/3 and annual loss of dependency is taken as Rs.48,750/- (Rs.65,000/- minus Vi).

11.3 The deceased was aged 43 years at the time of the incident and appropriate multiplier at the age of 43 is 14. Applying the multiplier of 14, the total loss of dependency is computed to be Rs.6,82,500/-.

11.4 The learned Trial Court has not awarded any compensation for loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Rs. 1,17,500/- is awarded towards loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses.

11.5 Taking income of the deceased as Rs.65,000/- per annum, adding 30% towards future prospects, deducting 1/4 towards his personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 14 and adding Rs. 1,17,500/- towards loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses, the total compensation is computed as Rs.8,00,000/-. X

¶12Although the law with respect to the computation of compensation on the basis of multipliermethod is well settled,the learnedTrial Court appears to be ignorant of the same and instead of applying well settled multiplier method, the learned Trial Court applied the life expectancy method and computed the loss of dependency upto the age of 67 years. The learned Trial Court took the income of the deceased as Rs.50,000/- per annum, deducted 1/3'^'' towards his personal expenses and multipliedwith 24 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs.8,00,000/- whereas the appropriate multiplier to be applied according to the age of the deceased was 14.

¶13Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to and relied upon MCD V. Associationof Victims of Uphaar Tragedy AIR 2012 SC 100 to claim compensationofRs.10,00,000/-. MCD Vs. Associationof Victimsof Uphaar Tragedy (supra) relates to the death of 1997 whereas the present case relates to the year 1991. That apart, the compensationhas to be computedaccordingto the well settledprinciplesoflaw and this Courtdoes not find any case for enhancementof compensation. After some hearing, learned counsel for the appellantaccepts the computationof compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-and submitsthat the interest@ 9% p.a. be awardedto the appellantsfrom the date of filingof the suit.

¶14Applyingthe principlesof Section167 ofthe EvidenceAct, the award of compensationof Rs.8,00,000/-by the learned Trial Court is upheld though not for the reasonsmentionedthereinbut for the reasonsmentioned in para 11 above as there is a sufficientevidence on record to justify the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. As such, no case for enhancement of compensation is made out.

¶15The Trial Court has awarded interest @ 6% per annum which is on a lower side. The Supreme Court has consistently awarded interest @ 9% per annum in MCD Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (supra), Amresh Kumar v. Niranjan Lai Jagdish Parshad Jain (2015) 4 SCC 433, Mohinder Kaiir v. Hira Nand Sindhi (2015) 4 SCC 434 and Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi & Others v. Kasam Daud Kumbhar and Others. Following the aforesaid judgments, the rate of interest is enhanced from 6% per annum to 9% per annum.

¶16For the reasons given above, the appeal is partly allowed. The compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- awarded by the learned Trial Court against Page 7of 8 respondentNo.2 is upheld. However, the appellants shall be entitled to interest@ 9% per annum on the decretalamountof Rs.8,00,000/-from the date of filing of the suit till realizationagainstrespondentNo.2.

¶17RespondentNo.2 has deposited the amount in terms of the decree passedby the learnedTrial Courtwith the RegistrarGeneralof this Courtin terms of order dated 19^'' May, 2015. The balanceamount in terms of this judgment be deposited by respondent No.2 with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch by means of a cheque drawn in the name of UCO Bank A/c Neetu Khubchandani. After deposit of balance decretal amount, the respondent No. 2 is at liberty to take up the matter with respondent No.l for recovery in terms of the agreement between respondents No.l and 2.

¶18The mode of disbursement of the decretal amount shall be taken up after hearing the appellants.

¶19List for directionson 23'^''July, 2015. •20. The appellants shall remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing.

¶21This Court appreciatesthe assistancerendered by Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned ASG in this matter.

¶22CopyofthisJudgmentbe givendastito counselfor the partiesas well as UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch under the signatureof the Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J. JULY 9,2015/ak 276/2015

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % Date of Decision : 9"" July, 2015 NEETU KHUBCHANDANI & ORS Appellants Through: Mr. Puneet Taneja, Mr. Rajesh Mahindroo, Ms. Shahean, Advs. along with appellant nos. 1 and 2 in person. versus SETHI AUTO SERVICES STATION & ANR Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr.Kirtiman Singh, CGSC, Ms.Prema Shah Deo, Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Mr. Gyanesh Bharadwaj, Advs. for UOI. Mr. Rajiv Garg, Mr. K.K. Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Mr. Somiram Shanna, Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Advocates for respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA