Usha Rani and Others vs Pritam Singh and Others

G.P. Mittal, J.

CM No. 21601/2011(Exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

MAC.APP. 137/2006

This appeal is enhancement of compensation in respect of death of the deceased Jagmohan Lal Rathi, who was aged 29 years and 10 months on the date of accident which took place on 19.09.1984. The claim petition was dismissed by the tribunal by an order dated 03.01.1995. FAO No. 119/1995 preferred by the appellants, came to be allowed by the High Court. In Para 10, the High Court held as under:

For the purposes of Motor Vehicle Act, surely, it cannot be said that the accident has not taken place resulting in the death of Shri Jagmohan Lal. That being the case, I set aside the finding of the court below. As regards the question whether the Insurance Company would be liable to pay compensation in the first instance as held in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani & Ors. JT 2002(10) SC 162, that the Insurance Company may not be itself liable to discharge the award of compensation. Yet in M/s National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur & Ors. JT 2004 (1) SC 15, it has been held that in the first instance the Insurance Company must discharge the award but would be well within its right to recover the same from the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle. This has further been followed by the Supreme Court in Sri Pramod Kumar Agrawal and Ors. Vs. Smt. Mushtari Begum & Ors., JT 2004 (6) SC 501.

The tribunal was directed to compute the amount of compensation payable to the appellants.

The respondent insurance company preferred an appeal against the order dated 04.11.2004 whereby it was ordered that the amount of compensation may be quantified but the final award shall not be executed until further orders of the Supreme Court.

By an order dated 10.02.2006, the tribunal took the average carry home salary of the deceased to be Rs. 600/-, made addition of 50% towards future prospects on the basis of Smt. Sarla Dixit and another Vs. Balwant Yadav and others, and Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, applied the multiplier of 17 and computed the dependency at Rs. 1,22,400/-. The tribunal further awarded the conventional sums towards loss of love and affection, loss of estate etc. and awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,34,400/-.

It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the law as laid down in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav(supra) and Sarla Verma & Ors.v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra) cannot do justice to the appellants as the deceased would have got a salary of about Rs. 12,000/- for the year 2005 (if he would have been alive) and his salary would have increased further by the time he would have retired.

All these factors were considered by the Supreme Court in Sarla Varma v. DTC (supra) and it was held that only 50% addition can be made towards future prospects.

There is evidence on record to show that the deceased was getting a total salary of Rs. 880/- per month. The deduction towards payment of City Compensatory Allowance and House Rent Allowance which was part of salary ought not to have been made by the tribunal. Thus, applying the ratio of Sarla Varma v. DTC (supra), the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,12,000/- after adding further sum of Rs. 10,000/- each towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, the total compensation comes to Rs. 2,47,000/-.

It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the tribunal awarded interest @ 9% till the year 2000, but thereafter illegally reduced the rate of interest at 5.5%. It is true that the interest rates have fallen after the year 2000, but today again the rate of interest is on a rise. As per the Sarla Varma (supra), the appellant would be entitled to interest @ 7.5% from 01.01.2000 till the payment. It is clarified that since the execution of the award has been stayed by the Supreme Court, the payment of compensation shall be subject to the orders of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The appeal is allowed in above terms. No costs.

CM No. 73/2011

In view of the orders passed above and the clarification that the final award shall not be executed until further orders of the Supreme Court, the review application is dismissed.

The application stands disposed of.