SURAJMUKHI Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal, appellants have sought enhancement in compensation as awarded to the appellants under Section 110- A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by the Tribunal.

(2.) The deceased who died out of accident on the night of 20/21 October, 1984 was aged 41 years and working as Assistant Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police at a monthly salary of Rs.1239.30/-. He left behind wife, three children and his parents. One of his daughters Smt. Anita Kumari was already married and was not dependent upon him although she was arrayed as a claimant. The learned Tribunal while computing compensation considered that a sum of Rs.439.30/- would be the amount being spent by deceased on his own upkeep and took the monthly dependency as Rs.800/- p.m. The learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 11 in this case and arrived at a compensation payable to the LRs of deceased as Rs.1,05,600/-. It is submitted by Counsel for the appellant

(3.) It is undisputed that deceased left behind a widow, two dependent children (since one daughter was married) and his aged parents. Mother of the deceased would also for all intents and purposes be considered as dependent on the son in view of the advancing age of the father of the deceased. Thus, the number of dependents of the deceased in this case was four. Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009 ACJ 1298, the Supreme Court laid down a rule of thumb for calculating compensation. The deduction towards personal expenses in case where dependents were 4-6 should be 1/4th of the salary. Considering the salary of the deceased as Rs.1239/-, I consider that around 1/4th i.e. Rs.309/- would have been proper deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased and monthly dependency should be considered as Rs.1239/- Rs.309/- = Rs.930/- p.m. Since the deceased was working in Delhi Police, he was bound to have regular increments and his future career would have progressed with time and in view of judgment of Sarla Verma's case, his age being 41 years 30% should have been added towards the future prospects. Thus, a sum of Rs.279/- should have been added towards future prospects. The proper multiplier as per Sarla Verma's case would be 14. Thus the claimants would have been entitled to a compensation of Rs.(930+279) X 12 X 14 = Rs. 2,03,112/-. The dependants have also not been awarded compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. I award Rs.5000/- each for loss of estate and loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- as funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation, the claimants should have been awarded would come to Rs.2,03,112/- + Rs.12,000/- = Rs.2,15,112/-. The award of the learned Tribunal is accordingly modified and it is held that the appellants would be entitled to compensation of Rs.2,15,112/- instead of Rs.1,05,600/- in the same proportion