Presiding Officer who has treated the death of an unmarried daughter to be
falling in a category which does not entitle the claimants/parents to seek
compensation for her death.
The entire approach of the learned Presiding Officer in not even
dealing with the case laws cited on behalf of the claimants observing that
none of them dealt with death of unmarried daughter aged about 19 years,
has to be termed as perverse.
For seeking compensation, Motor Vehicle Act does not lay down
separate criteria for death of a male or female child. Thus, not considering
the legal position laid down in various pronouncements relied upon by the
claimants/appellants before the learned Tribunal (nineteen reports were
cited) requires the learned Presiding Officer to be sensitized on her approach
on gender issue.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Delivered on: December 23, 2015
MAC.APP. 339/2006
ARKESH JAIN & ORS. V MOHD. ISHRAR & ORS.
Coram: PRATIBHA RANI, J.
1. Our Constitution guarantees every citizen the fundamental right to
equality before law.
2. Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides:-
‘The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law
or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.’
3. Article 15(1) of our Constitution further provides:-
‘The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds
only of religion, race, caste, sex, place or birth or any of them.’
4. A common saying that :
‘A son is a son until he gets a wife. A daughter is a daughter
throughout her life.’
has been quoted by the Supreme Court in the report Savita Samvedi
(Ms) and Anr. vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 380 whileMAC.APP 339/2006 Page 2 of 17
striking down Railway Board Circular dated 11.08.1992 being violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. The claim petition bearing Suit No.588/03/00 was filed by the parents
and younger brother of the deceased Komal Jain seeking compensation for
her death in a motor vehicular accident on 30.09.1999. The compensation
has been denied by the learned Tribunal and even the case law cited on
behalf of the claimants to claim just and reasonable compensation has not
been discussed by the learned Tribunal observing that none of them dealt
with the death of an unmarried girl.
6. The learned Tribunal felt it just and proper to award a sum of ₹2 lacs
only under the head ‘emotional loss’.
7. The observation made by the learned Tribunal for denying the claim
to the parents has shocked the judicial conscience of this Court. The reasons
for arriving at the above conclusion given by the learned Tribunal are
extracted hereunder:-
“12. Petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW1 on the basis of
her affidavit tendered as PW1/A vide which para No.6 of which
she has referred to the educational and professional
qualifications of the deceased and referred to some documents
like education certificate, age proof certificate and employment
proof as CW/____ (Left Blank) and as per her statement
tendered her affidavit, no such documents were ever tendered
either on the first occasion or on any subsequent date. Even so
in the interest of justice, since duly attested copies of marksheet
of secondary examination and also school leaving
certificate are on record, the date of birth of deceased is taken
to be proved as 21.10.1980 thus, implying that the deceased
was 19 years of age when she died. Also the said mark-sheet
reflects meritorious record of the deceased with her getting
grades like A1, A2 B1 and B2 and not less in all subjects. Also
the mark-sheet of senior secondary certificate reflects the same
trend of her academic record. However, there is no record of
employment or any other professional studies thereafter but the MAC.APP 339/2006 Page 3 of 17
deceased was certainly meritorious student and would have had
a bright career had she continued to live. However, it is also a
reality that deceased in due course of five or six years would
also have got married off and her own marriage would have
involved considerable expenses as per the social status of the
parties. As such even if the deceased had turned into a bright
professional with a rising career, her income contribution
would in the normal circumstance have gone to her
matrimonial home and not to her parents unless of course the
parents would have proved otherwise. The petitioners have
failed to prove their financial dependency upon their daughter
particularly, as per the record, the petitioners themselves are
young enough and the father of the deceased girl was only 47
years of age while the mother was around 41 years of age and
there is no good reason shown as to why they were dependent
on their studying daughter who was still and would have been
married in due course of five-six years. It is true that
petitioner No.1 has not been cross-examined by respondent
No.3 also on any point whatsoever but financial dependency
has to be made out and proved by the petitioners themselves
which the petitioners have failed to prove in the present case.
13. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a plethora
of judgments as being on the point of quantum of compensation
in the case of bachelor. The same are as under:
1. 2003 ACJ 1783 Rajasthan
2. 2003 ACJ 105 Karnataka (D.B)
3. 2003 ACJ 213 Kerala (D.B)
4. 1980 AIR 1354 Supreme Court
5. 2003 ACJ 369 M.P (D.B)
6. 1996 ACJ 1044 Supreme Court
7. 1995 ACJ 560 M. (D.B)
8. 1994 ACJ 1 Supreme Court
9. 1996 ACJ 581 Supreme Court
10. 1996 ACJ 831 Supreme Court
11. 2002 ACJ 312 Delhi (D.B)
12. 2003 ACJ 1114 High Court Delhi
13. 2001 ACJ 1719 Supreme Court
14. 2001 ACJ 1735 Supreme Court
15. 2003 ACJ 2152 Supreme CourtMAC.APP 339/2006 Page 4 of 17
16. 2004 ACJ 53 Supreme Court
17. 2003 ACJ 1631 High Court of Delhi
18. J.T. 1999(6) 10 Supreme Court
19. 2003 ACJ 680 Supreme Court
All these judgments have been perused but not even one
of them is dealing or discussing the criteria of determining
compensation in the case of an unmarried daughter aged
about 19 years and as such not even one of the judgments
cited and relied upon by Ld. Counsel for petitioner is of any
help to the petitioner in the present case.
14. In view of the above discussion as per which the
dependency itself of the petitioners parents of their deceased
daughter has not been even made out, as from their own
averments; the entire plethora of judgments cited above do not
apply to the present case and of no help whatsoever to the
petitioner. None of the mentioned judgments, otherwise also
pertain to the aspect of compensation in the case of female
child aged about 19 years. Even after taking the education
record of the deceased to be meritorious, the hard reality in
the present Indian social set up remains that under normal
circumstances, a daughter in any family would be got married
off by the age of 21 to 25, and once married whatever her
income be would normally be contributed to her matrimonial
home and not to her parental home. As parents in the present
Indian set up shy away from taking the earning of daughters.
However, it is not as if there are no cases where daughters are
running the household, but then the burden to prove such
exceptional circumstances would certainly lie upon the
petitioners and unless and until that is done, the presumption
in context of normal routine circumstances and social set up
would have to be adopted for assessment. It also cannot be
ignored that the daughter when married off particularly in the
Jain Community would involve huge expenses to be incurred
in the marriage itself and this hard fact cannot be disputed in
the present social set up in our country. Had the deceased not
expired in the said accident, no doubt her marriage expenses
would also have been borne by the petitioners and as such
whatever earning the deceased would have made, would also MAC.APP 339/2006 Page 5 of 17
have been used up if at all towards the said marriage
expenses. In any case, since no dependency of the parents on
their daughter has also been made out, the further question of
the quantum does not even arise.
15. However, the emotional loss of the parents of the
deceased is not compensable in terms of money and the same
irreplaceable but even so for the purpose of this claim a sum
of ` 2,00,000/- is being held just and fair in view of the fact
that deceased was a young girl aged only 19 years, the loss of
whose life would have given the parents tremendous and
unmeasurable pain and mental agony. The unfortunate
parents would also have incurred some expenses on the last
rites of the deceased daughter and in the absence of any
documentary evidence the same is being assessed at a sum of
`10,000/-. The petitioners as such are held entitled to a sum of
` 2,10,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of
9% per annum from the date of institution till the date of this
award.”
8. The parents and younger brother of the deceased Komal Jain filed a
claim petition seeking compensation of ₹ 16 lacs pleading that the deceased
Komal Jain was a bright student, who was doing under graduation course
from Delhi University and simultaneously also pursuing Diploma Course in
Elementary Teacher Education. At the time of her death, she was 19 years
old. On the unfortunate day i.e. on 30.09.1999 at about 3.00 pm Kumari
Komal Jain was in the process of boarding the offending bus bearing
registration No.DL-1P-A-1932 from Bus Stand Sector-8, Rohini. At that
time another bus of Route No.879 was also in stationary position at the bus
stand. When she was yet to fully enter the offending bus bearing
registration No.DL-1P-A-1932 from the rear gate, the driver of the said bus
with a view to overtake the stationary bus of Route No.879, started the bus
and drove it in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which Komal Jain
came in between the stationary bus and the offending bus and suffered fatal MAC.APP 339/2006 Page 6 of 17
injuries.
9. The appellants also claimed that deceased Komal Jain used to give
tuitions and was earning ₹5000/- per month. She was also contributing
towards household expenses and paying tuition fee for her younger brother.
10. It is painful to note that the award has been penned down by a lady
Presiding Officer who has treated the death of an unmarried daughter to be
falling in a category which does not entitle the claimants/parents to seek
compensation for her death.
11. The entire approach of the learned Presiding Officer in not even
dealing with the case laws cited on behalf of the claimants observing that
none of them dealt with death of unmarried daughter aged about 19 years,
has to be termed as perverse.
12. For seeking compensation, Motor Vehicle Act does not lay down
separate criteria for death of a male or female child. Thus, not considering
the legal position laid down in various pronouncements relied upon by the
claimants/appellants before the learned Tribunal (nineteen reports were
cited) requires the learned Presiding Officer to be sensitized on her approach
on gender issue.
13. The learned Tribunal while passing the award and awarding a pittance
towards emotional loss perhaps did not realise that the observation made by
her in the impugned award has the effect of rubbing salt on the wounds of
the parents who had already lost their daughter in prime of her youth.
14. Since the impugned award denying compensation to the parents for
the death of their unmarried daughter is not sustainable in the eyes of law,
the same is set aside to that extent.
15. The finding of learned Tribunal regarding rash and negligent driving
has not been challenged by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle
and the same has attained finality.
16. Now the question arises as to what should be the just and reasonable
compensation which should have been awarded by the Tribunal. The learned
Tribunal has not applied its mind on these aspects as the claim has been
denied on account of the fact that deceased was 19 years old unmarried girl
and there was no loss of dependency.
17. Though the circumstances require that the claim petition should be
remanded to the Tribunal to deal with all aspects but taking into
consideration the fact that death of Komal Jain had taken place on 30th
September, 1999, award has been passed on 26th May, 2005. Thereafter the
appeal filed by the claimants was dismissed in default. In the SLP Nos.
10843-10845/2014 preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appeal
was restored desiring this Court to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.
18. Mr.Anuj Jain, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has
submitted that the deceased in this case was a young girl aged about 19
years and she was financially supporting her parents by giving tuitions. She
was in the second year of ETE course from a prestigious institution and was
a meritorious candidate. She was also pursuing graduation course from
Delhi University. As she was pursuing a professional course, on
completion of same her prospective income should be taken as ` 10,000/-
per month.
19. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon V.Mekala Vs.
M.Malathi, 2014 (6) JT 212, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kalpana
Mishra 2012 (9) AD (Delhi) 407, United India Insurance Company Ltd.
vs. Dr.Jia lal Prashar & ORs. 2013 (133) DRJ 740 and B.Ramulamma &
Ors. vs. Venkatesh Bus Union & Another 2011 ACJ 1702 in support of his
contention that future prospects of the deceased should be considered and at MAC.APP 339/2006 Page 8 of 17
least the prospective income of ` 10,000/- should be enhanced by 50% for
purpose of calculating the compensation.
20. Another contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the
multiplier applicable in the case has to be as per the death of the deceased
which is specified not only in the second schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act
but also as held in Munnal Lal Jain Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma, 2015 (6)
Scale 522. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that only
1/3rd of the income need to be deducted towards personal expenses as held in
Munna Lal Jain’s case (supra), thus while calculating the compensation
and other non-pecuniary damages, compensation may be awarded. Learned
counsel for the appellants has also referred to one advertisement of Delhi
Subordinate Service Selection Board, which was an advertisement issued in
the year 2000 inviting applications from the eligible candidates who have
passed B.L.Ed. from Delhi University, JBT from SCERT and TTI (Dte of
Education), ETE from SCERT and DBT from JMI and the pay-scale given
therein is ` 4500-7000.
21. On behalf of the respondent No.3/Insurance Company,
Mr.Tarkeshwar Nath, Advocate has submitted that the deceased was 12th
pass. She was pursuing B.Com.(Pass) course through correspondence and
her mark-sheet does not reflect that she was a brilliant student. She was also
pursing ETE Diploma Course from Rama Krishna Teachers Training
Institute Course, Vikas Puri, Delhi run by State Council of Educational
Research and Training, Varun Marg, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024.
Ranking of the said institute or the course pursued by her cannot be termed
to be such as to treat the course as professional course that could have made
her earn `10,000/- per month.
22. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company has MAC.APP 339/2006 Page 9 of 17
urged that Elementary Teacher Education course would have made her
eligible to teach nursery classes only. It has been submitted that in most of
the Government/MCD schools the admissions start at the age of 5 years. The
remuneration given to the nursery teacher in the nursery schools which are
run privately is very low hence the notional income of the deceased cannot
be treated to be ` 10,000/- pm with addition of 50% towards future
prospects.
23. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has also submitted that
the multiplier has to be applied as per the age of the claimants for the reason
that decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in UPSRTC Vs. Trilok Chand
(1996) 4 SCC 362 still holds good and the decision of the Munna Lal Jain’s
case (supra) cannot be relied upon to award compensation on the basis of
age of the deceased.
24. I have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the
record.
25. So far as case laws relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants is
concerned, in the case V.Mekala Vs. M.Malathi (Supra), the deceased was
held to be a brilliant student studying in 11th standard and considering
₹6000/- as monthly notional income to be too meagre, ₹10,000/- was taken
as her monthly notional income keeping in mind her past results.
26. In the case United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kalpana Mishra
(Supra) the deceased was working a part time Accountant as well pursuing
B.Com and therefore the salary of LDC in the year 2000 considered as
potential income by the Tribunal in appeal was considered to be not
exorbitant by the High Court.
27. In the report B.Ramulamma & Ors. vs. Venkatesh Bus Union &
Another (Supra) the deceased was a final year student of B.E. (Computers), MAC.APP 339/2006 Page 10 of 17
the salary of his classmates was considered observing that deceased also
should have got the job, hence income earned by the classmates with similar
education and technical qualifications would be relevant for taking it to be a
guiding factor.
28. In the case United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Dr.Jia lal
Prashar & Ors. (Supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants,
the deceased was a final year student of B.E., Industrial Production
Engineering from BVB College of Engineering and Technology which was
an old college. The Court took judicial notice of the salary of a Group ‘A’
Officer or of an Engineer with basic pay starting at ₹8000/- with all
allowances.
29. The first question that arises for consideration is as to what should be
taken as the income of the deceased for purpose of computing the
compensation. In the claim petition, the income of the deceased has been
stated to be `5000/- per month which she was earning by giving tuitions.
The appellants/claimants have not led any evidence on this issue except
making a bald statement.
30. So far as reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellants on the
judgments cited above is concerned, suffice it to note here that the appellants
have not examined any classmate of the deceased Komal Jain who have
passed out from the same Institute from where the deceased was pursuing
ETE Course and chances of their getting job/placement so as to assess the
potential income of the deceased in this case.
31. Ms.Komal Jain (deceased) has expired in the year 1999. The parents
of the deceased have not been able to state as to what she was charging as
tuition fee and to how many children and of which standard she was giving
tuitions. The deceased was pursing ETE course from Rama Krishna MAC.APP 339/2006 Page 11 of 17
Teachers Training Institute Course, Vikas Puri, Delhi run by State Council
of Educational Research and Training, Varun Marg, Defence Colony, New
Delhi-110024. Statement of marksheet of B.Com (Pass), Part-I
Examination which the deceased was pursuing through correspondence
course reveals that :-
“B.Com.(Pass) – Part-I Examination Year : 1999 Roll No.77758
Name of candidate : Komal Jain College : Correspondence Courses
PAPER MAXIMUM
MARKS
MARKS
OBTAINED
I 100 61
II 100 36
III 100 31
IV 100 46
TOTAL 400 174
The above statement of marks does not reflect her academic record to
be bright.
32. It may also be noted that recruitment of Nursery Teachers for
Government Schools is not a regular process. Rather most of the
Government/MCD Schools are not having nursery classes and they admit
the students only in 1st standard.
33. Prospects of getting government job after doing this ETE course were
not bright as this course would have made her eligible to teach nursery
classes but not to earn `10,000/- per month as Nursery Teacher in the year
1999-2000. Even as on date i.e. almost after 16 years, the Nursery Teachers
are not getting salary of `10,000/- in private schools.
34. There is no material before this Court to ascertain even approximately
about how many students had been able to get government job in Nursery
Schools or the placement of other pass out students from that Institute and
their earnings during the relevant period.MAC.APP 339/2006 Page 12 of 17
35. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants
that her income has to be treated as `10,000/- per month as she was
undergoing professional course, has to be rejected.
36. In the circumstances, the minimum wages for 12th pass prevalent at
the relevant time has to be considered for purpose of calculating the income
of the deceased. The deceased Komal Jain has expired in the year 1999 and
at that time, the minimum wages for a matriculate/12th pass was ₹2796/- per
month. Hence, taking the minimum wages for a matriculate/12th pass
prevalent at the relevant time, the annual income of the deceased come to
₹33552/-.
37. The question of grant of future prospects was dealt with by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court at great length in HDFC Ergo General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Lalta Devi and Ors.,in MAC APP No. 189/
2014, decided on 12.01.2015. Relevant para 8 of the report is extracted
hereunder:
‘8. It is no gainsaying that in appropriate cases some addition
towards future prospects must be made in case of death or
injury of a person pursuing a professional course. At the same
time, it cannot be laid down as a uniform principle that every
person pursuing professional course will have a bright future.
There may be a student pursuing engineering from the reputed
engineering colleges like Indian Institute of Technology (IIT),
Regional Engineering College or any other reputed college. At
the same time, a number of engineering Colleges have
mushroomed where an engineering graduate may find it
difficult to secure a job of an engineer. In the instant case,
deceased Aditya, as stated earlier was a student of an unknown
engineering college, i.e. Echelon Institute of Technology,
Faridabad which is claimed to be affiliated to Maharshi
Dayanand University, Rohtak. The Claimants have placed on
record result-cum-detailed marks card of First and Second
Semester. It may be noted that the deceased had secured just
ordinary marks in seven subjects and he had to re-appear in MAC.APP 339/2006 Page 13 of 17
papers 1002 (Mathematical-I), 1006 (Foundation of Computer
& Programming) and 1008 (Basics of Mechanical
Engineering). Similarly, in the Second Semester the deceased
was absent in one of the 12 papers and out of 11 subjects for
which he had taken examination, he was to re-appear in four
subjects. Thus, it will be difficult to say that the deceased was a
brilliant student or that he was pursuing engineering from a
well known or even mediocre college.’
38. In the case Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65 the
three Judge Bench of Supreme Court reiterated the view taken in Sarla
Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 to the effect that in respect of a person
who was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments or who
was self-employed the actual income at the time of death should be taken
into account for determining the loss of income unless there are
extraordinary and exceptional circumstances.
39. Further, the divergence of opinion in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v.
Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir
Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 was noticed by the Supreme Court in
another judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpa & Ors.,
CC No.8058/2014, decided on 02.07.2014 and in concluding paragraph
while making reference to the Larger Bench, it was observed as under:-
“Be it noted, though the decision in Reshma (supra) was
rendered at earlier point of time, as is clear, the same has not
been noticed in Rajesh (supra) and that is why divergent
opinions have been expressed. We are of the considered
opinion that as regards the manner of addition of income of
future prospects there should be an authoritative
pronouncement. Therefore, we think it appropriate to refer the
matter to a larger Bench.”
40. So far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the
appellants/claimants regarding future prospects of the deceased is
concerned, the deceased was 12th pass and was doing ETE Diploma Course
as well as B.Com.(Pass) through correspondence Course. She was
undergoing ETE Diploma course from Rama Krishna Teachers Training
Institute Course, Vikas Puri, Delhi and only on completion of the said
course she would have been eligible to teach Nursery Classes in the Nursery
Schools which are being run privately. There is no evidence of good future
prospects so as to make addition on this count in the notional income.
41. The next question to be considered by this Court is about the
multiplier applicable in this case. The submission made by learned counsel
for the appellants that multiplier has to be as per the age of the deceased as
referred to in the IInd Schedule as well in view of the latest decision of the
Supreme Court in Munna Lal’s case (Supra), is liable to be rejected in view
of the decision of Supreme Court in UPSRTC Vs. Trilok Chand (1996) 4
SCC 362.
42. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Maneesha Karantak & Ors. in
MAC APP.655/2014, decided on 20.03.2015 has laid down that the three
Judge Bench decision in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. vs.
Trilok Chandra & Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 362 shall be a binding precedent. The
logic of taking the age of the deceased or the Claimant as laid down in
Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) (supra) and Trilok Chandara, (supra) was not
brought to the notice of the Supreme Court in Munna Lal Jain & Anr.
(supra). Otherwise also, in view of the judgment in Safiya Bee v. Mohd.
Vajahath Hussain @ Fasi, (2011) 2 SCC 94 and Union of India and Ors. v.
S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589, the law laid down in U.P. SRTC v. Trilok
Chandara, (1996) 4 SCC 362 shall be taken as binding precedent.
43. Thus, in the instant case, the age of the mother has to be considered
for selection of multiplier. As per the copy of the ration card place on
record, the age of Smt. Uma Jain - mother of the deceased was 35 years,
however the date of issue is not mentioned in the ration card. In the
circumstances, the age given by mother of the deceased i.e. appellant No.2
Smt.Uma Jain at the time of examination of PW-1 in the claim petition has
to be considered by this Court for purpose of applying the multiplier. PW-1
Smt.Uma Jain has been examined on 28.08.2003 and she has given her age
as 42 years on that date. The accident in this case has occurred in the year
1999, hence in the year 1999, the age of appellant No.2 Smt.Uma Jain was
38 years.
44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation 2009 (6) Scale 129 reviewed the law with regard to the
selection of multiplier and deduction towards personal and living expenses
and held that uniformity has to be achieved in payment of the compensation.
The Supreme Court in the said report has laid down the following principles
for grant of compensation in death cases:-
I. DEDUCTION FOR PERSONAL AND LIVING EXPENSES:
Deceased – unmarried
(i) Deduction towards personal expenses - 1/2 (50%)
(ii) Deduction where the family of the bachelor
is large and dependent on the income of the
deceased. - 1/3rd (33.33%)
Deceased – married
(i) 2 to 3 dependent family members - 1/3rd
(ii) 4 to 6 dependent family members - 1/4th
(iii) More than 6 family members - 1/5th
(iv) Subject to the evidence to the MAC.APP 339/2006 Page 16 of 17
contrary - Father, brother
and sisters will not
be considered as
dependents.
II. MULTIPLIER
Age of the deceased (in
years)
Multiplier
15-20 18
21-25 18
26-30 17
31-35 16
36-40 15
41-45 14
46-50 13
51-55 11
56-60 09
61-65 07
Above 65 05
19. In view of the decision in Sarla Verma’s case (Supra), the multiplier
applicable in this case is ‘15’. The deceased was unmarried at the time of
death. Hence, the loss of dependency will therefore, come to ₹2,51,640/-
(₹2796 X 12 X 15 X 1/2).
20. In addition, the appellants are also entitled to a sum of ₹1,00,000/-
towards love and affect, ₹25,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹10,000/-
towards loss to estate in view of the three Judge Bench decision of the
Supreme Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54.
21. The overall compensation, thus, comes to ₹3,86,640/-.
22. After adjusting the amount of ₹2,10,000/- awarded by the learned
Tribunal, if already paid/deposited, the insurance company/respondent No.3
is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. The MAC.APP 339/2006 Page 17 of 17
compensation amount shall be apportioned equally between appellants No.1
and 2 i.e. father and mother of the deceased.
23. After deposit of compensation amount by the insurance
company/respondent No.3, ₹1 lac each shall be released to the appellants
No.1 and 2 and remaining amount shall be kept in the form of FDR for a
period of five years. However, the appellants No.1 and 2 shall withdraw the
quarterly interest accrued thereon.
24. Appeal stands allowed in above terms.
25. In view of the observation made above in paras No.12 and 13, a copy
of this order be transmitted to the Chairman, Inspecting Committee.
26. LCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order.
27. As prayed, copy of the order be given dasti to learned counsel for the
parties.
PRATIBHA RANI
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 23, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment