MAC. APP. 224/2012 Page 1 of 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 1
st
May, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 224/2012
DINESH SINGH & ANR ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Manish Maini, Advocate
versus
RAMA NAND SINGH & ORS ..... Respondent
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
J U D G M E N T
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of
`10,54,500/- awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the
Claims Tribunal) for the death of Rupesh Kumar, who died in a
motor accident which took place on 01.09.2008.
2. The deceased was B.Sc. (Hons.) and held a Postgraduate
Diploma in Management. He was employed as a Relationship
Manager with India Bulls Securities Limited. He was earning a
sum of `2,40,000/- per annum and was confirmed by a
Confirmation letter dated 07.09.2006.
3. Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellants:-
(i) The future prospects were not considered inspite of the MAC. APP. 224/2012 Page 2 of 4
fact that he was a highly qualified person and was in
permanent employment.
(ii) The multiplier should have been ‘11’instead of ‘9’as per
the age of the deceased’s mother who was 55 years.
4. The Claims Tribunal on the question of the assessment of loss
of dependency held as under:-
“12. The income of the deceased is taken as
Rs.2,40,000/- per annum. The petitioner failed to
disclose the amount deducted towards income tax
therefore after deduction of RS.9,000/- towards income
tax, the net income comes to Rs.2,31,000/- per annum.
Interest of justice in the present case would be met if ½
i.e. Rs.1,15,500/- is deducted as the personal and living
expenses of the deceased (as the deceased was bachelor).
After such deduction the contribution to the family
(dependants) is determined as Rs.1,15,500/- per annum.
The multiplier applicable would be 9 (As age of mother
was stated to be 55 years at the time of accident while the
age of the father of the deceased as mentioned in PAN
card as 09.07.1950 i.e. 58 years at the time of accident.
Multiplier taken at the average age of mother i.e. 55
years and father’s age i.e. 58 years at the time of
accident. Therefore, the total loss on dependency would
be RS.1,15,500/- x 9 = 10,39,500/-.”
5. The Claims Tribunal while declining the future prospects held
that the deceased had just about two months of service and there
was nothing on record to prove the future prospects.
6. The letter dated 07.09.2006 clearly shows that the deceased was
a confirmed employee of India Bulls. Considering that the MAC. APP. 224/2012 Page 3 of 4
deceased was a highly qualified person, aged about 26 years
who was at the threshold of his career and was a confirmed
employee, the Appellants were therefore entitled to an addition
of 50% in the deceased’s income towards future prospects.
7. The Claims Tribunal while making deduction towards personal
and living expenses took the average age of the parents to
determine the loss of dependency. It was observed that the
deceased’s mother was aged 55 years and his father was aged
58 years on the date of the accident. Since father is not
considered as a dependant, the age of the deceased’s mother i.e.
55 years would be considered to determine the multiplier which
would be ‘11’. The loss of dependency thus comes to
`19,05,750/- (2,40,000/- - 9,000/- + 50% x 1/2 x 11).
8. On adding conventional sums of `25,000/- towards Loss of
Love and Affection and `10,000/- each towards Funeral
Expenses and Loss to Estate, the overall compensation comes to
`19,50,750/-.
9. The compensation is thus enhanced from `10,54,500/- to
`19,05,750/- which shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from
the date of filing of the Petition till the date of deposit.
10. Respondent No.3 United India Insurance Company Limited is
directed to make the deposit of the enhanced compensation of
`8,51,250/- alongwith interest within six weeks with UCO
Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi in the proportion as MAC. APP. 224/2012 Page 4 of 4
awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the name of the Appellants.
11. The enhanced compensation shall be released in favour of the
Appellants in terms of the Tribunal’s order.
12. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 01, 2012
vk
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 1
st
May, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 224/2012
DINESH SINGH & ANR ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Manish Maini, Advocate
versus
RAMA NAND SINGH & ORS ..... Respondent
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
J U D G M E N T
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of
`10,54,500/- awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the
Claims Tribunal) for the death of Rupesh Kumar, who died in a
motor accident which took place on 01.09.2008.
2. The deceased was B.Sc. (Hons.) and held a Postgraduate
Diploma in Management. He was employed as a Relationship
Manager with India Bulls Securities Limited. He was earning a
sum of `2,40,000/- per annum and was confirmed by a
Confirmation letter dated 07.09.2006.
3. Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellants:-
(i) The future prospects were not considered inspite of the MAC. APP. 224/2012 Page 2 of 4
fact that he was a highly qualified person and was in
permanent employment.
(ii) The multiplier should have been ‘11’instead of ‘9’as per
the age of the deceased’s mother who was 55 years.
4. The Claims Tribunal on the question of the assessment of loss
of dependency held as under:-
“12. The income of the deceased is taken as
Rs.2,40,000/- per annum. The petitioner failed to
disclose the amount deducted towards income tax
therefore after deduction of RS.9,000/- towards income
tax, the net income comes to Rs.2,31,000/- per annum.
Interest of justice in the present case would be met if ½
i.e. Rs.1,15,500/- is deducted as the personal and living
expenses of the deceased (as the deceased was bachelor).
After such deduction the contribution to the family
(dependants) is determined as Rs.1,15,500/- per annum.
The multiplier applicable would be 9 (As age of mother
was stated to be 55 years at the time of accident while the
age of the father of the deceased as mentioned in PAN
card as 09.07.1950 i.e. 58 years at the time of accident.
Multiplier taken at the average age of mother i.e. 55
years and father’s age i.e. 58 years at the time of
accident. Therefore, the total loss on dependency would
be RS.1,15,500/- x 9 = 10,39,500/-.”
5. The Claims Tribunal while declining the future prospects held
that the deceased had just about two months of service and there
was nothing on record to prove the future prospects.
6. The letter dated 07.09.2006 clearly shows that the deceased was
a confirmed employee of India Bulls. Considering that the MAC. APP. 224/2012 Page 3 of 4
deceased was a highly qualified person, aged about 26 years
who was at the threshold of his career and was a confirmed
employee, the Appellants were therefore entitled to an addition
of 50% in the deceased’s income towards future prospects.
7. The Claims Tribunal while making deduction towards personal
and living expenses took the average age of the parents to
determine the loss of dependency. It was observed that the
deceased’s mother was aged 55 years and his father was aged
58 years on the date of the accident. Since father is not
considered as a dependant, the age of the deceased’s mother i.e.
55 years would be considered to determine the multiplier which
would be ‘11’. The loss of dependency thus comes to
`19,05,750/- (2,40,000/- - 9,000/- + 50% x 1/2 x 11).
8. On adding conventional sums of `25,000/- towards Loss of
Love and Affection and `10,000/- each towards Funeral
Expenses and Loss to Estate, the overall compensation comes to
`19,50,750/-.
9. The compensation is thus enhanced from `10,54,500/- to
`19,05,750/- which shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from
the date of filing of the Petition till the date of deposit.
10. Respondent No.3 United India Insurance Company Limited is
directed to make the deposit of the enhanced compensation of
`8,51,250/- alongwith interest within six weeks with UCO
Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi in the proportion as MAC. APP. 224/2012 Page 4 of 4
awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the name of the Appellants.
11. The enhanced compensation shall be released in favour of the
Appellants in terms of the Tribunal’s order.
12. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 01, 2012
vk
