TRIPTA RANI AND OTHERS Vs. SURINDER PAL
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Tripta Rani And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
Kailash Gambhir, J. -
(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellants have assailed the findings of the Tribunal mainly on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly towards personal expenses of the deceased although the deceased who was aged 36 years had at the time of accident left behind his widow and four minor children i.e., two daughters and two sons. Counsel for the appellants contends that future prospects of the deceased even as per the minimum wages were not taken into consideration. The counsel for the appellants contends that correct multiplier as per the Second Schedule was not applied which is 16 years between the age group of 35 to 40 years.Counsel for the appellants contends that the deceased was of 36 years and therefore multiplier of 16 as laid down in the Second Schedule should have been applied by the Tribunal. The appellants are also aggrieved with the grant of less amount of compensation towards consortium which as per the appellants should not have been below Rs.50,000/-. Mr. O.P.Mannie, counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that a very meager amount of Rs.76,000/- has been awarded in favour of the appellants although the deceased was the only bread earner of the family who died at the young age of only 36 years. Counsel further contends that the deceased was supporting a large family comprising of wife with four minor children and therefore he must be spending more amount towards their maintenance and education and not on himself. Counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted ⅓rd of the income towards his personal expenses.
(2.) Counsel for the appellant also contends that under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the special provision dealing with the grant of compensation has not been dealt with by the Tribunal and on the basis of structured formula a minimum compensation payable for a victim of the accident up to the age of 15 years even though he may be a non-earning person would alone come out at Rs.1,50,000/-. Counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein under Clause '6' notional income for a non-earning person has been specified at Rs.15,000/-, multiplier of 15 has been laid down for a person up to 15 years and ⅓rd of the income is deducted towards the personal expenses and accordingly, therefore, the total amount of compensation for a person up to the age of 15 years would come to at Rs.1,50,000/- by applying the multiplier of 15. Placing reliance on the said Schedule, counsel for the appellants contends that insufficient amount towards compensation has been awarded in favour of the appellants. Counsel also contends that a meager amount of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded towards non pecuniary damages. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is that the Supreme Court in catena of cases has granted minimum compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards consortium. Mr. Mannie, counsel for the appellants also contends that the appellants have been illegally deprived of the interest on the award amount w.e.f. 15.10.87 till 23.11.95 on the ground that there was delay on the part of the appellants in prosecuting their compensation case.
(3.) Per contra, Mr. Tyagi, counsel for the respondent contends that the matter pertains to an accident which had occurred in the year 1986 and therefore, the criteria as laid down in Section 163-A cannot be taken into consideration for determining the compensation in favour of the appellants. Counsel for the respondent further contends that in such cases the Supreme Court has applied the multiplier of 13 years. Mr. Tyagi has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. K.S. Bindu and Ors., 2006 ACJ 423 : 2006 (1) TAC 1. The contention of the counsel for the respondent is that in the said case the deceased was employed as a UDC in Civil Supplies Corporation and died at the age of 34 years. In that case the Supreme Court applied the multiplier of 13 years instead of 17 years as awarded by the Tribunal and even future prospects were not taken into consideration in the said judgment. Counsel for the respondent also contends that as far as denial of interest from 15.10.87 till 23.11.95 is concerned, no illegality can be found with the findings of the Tribunals as such interest was not granted on account of the fact that the appellants had not impleaded the insurer till 23.11.95.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.