Partly allowed

Ganesh Kumar & Ors. v. Chalakan & Anr.

Delhi HC4 Jan 2018MAC.APP./4/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal sought enhancement of compensation for a motor accident death. The court recalculated loss of dependency based on minimum wages and revised non-pecuniary damages. Interest was enhanced to 9% per annum following consistent judicial views. The award was modified and the appeal disposed of with a direction for deposit.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.7,25,504/- to Rs.8,20,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. Respondents directed to deposit the amount within thirty days.

Ganesh Kumar & Ors. Vs Chalakan & Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~R-707

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Decided on: 4^th January, 2018

¶4

MAC.APP. 4/2013

¶5

GANESH KUMAR & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Nemo.

¶6

versus

¶7

CHALAKAN & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Nemo.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

¶9

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶10

The appellants were the claimants before the motor accident claims tribunal in accident claim case (Suit No.441/09) instituted on 07.08.2009, seeking compensation on account of death of Rinku Devi, aged 26 years, in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 08.07.2009 due to negligent driving of motor vehicle described as bearing registration No.DL-2FHE-0001 by the first respondent. By judgment dated 24.09.2012, the tribunal accepted the said claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and awarded total compensation in the sum of Rs.7,25,504/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, the said amount inclusive of Rs.6,95,504/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.

¶11

Page 1 of 3

¶12

MAC APP. 4/2013

¶13

Feeling aggrieved with the quantum of compensation, the present appeal was filed seeking enhancement. It was put in the list of ‘Regulars’ as per order dated 18.04.2016 with direction that it shall be taken up on its own turn. When it is called out for hearing, there is no appearance on behalf of either the appellants or the respondents.

¶14

File has been perused and the contentions raised in the appeal have been considered.

¶15

The tribunal found on the basis of evidence that the deceased was earning her livelihood as a maid-servant. Though the claim that her earnings were in the sum of Rs.6,000/- per month could not be substantiated, the tribunal calculated the loss of dependency with the help of minimum wages of unskilled worker (Rs.3934/- per month). It added the element of future prospects of increase to the extent of 30%, and made deduction of one-third towards personal and living expenses, and thereafter applied the multiplier of 17. The only error noted in the calculation is concerning calculation of future prospects of increase which should be to the extent of 40%. [See: National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., SLP (C) 25590/2014, decided on 31.10.2017] .

¶16

Correcting the error and recalculating the loss of dependency, the compensation under the said head is worked out as (3934 x 140/100 x 2/3 x 12 x 17) Rs.7,49,033.6 rounded off to Rs.7,50,000/(Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only).

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

MAC APP. 4/2013

¶19

Having regard to the dispensation in Pranay Sethi (supra), the non-pecuniary heads of damages also need to be revised. In lieu thereof, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- each towards loss to estate and funeral expenses are added. Thus, the total compensation comes to (7,50,000/- + 40,000/- + 15,000/- + 15,000/-) Rs.8,20,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Twenty Thousand Only).

¶20

Following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of interest is increased to 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. [see judgment dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors .].

¶21

The award is modified accordingly.

¶22

The respondents shall be obliged to satisfy the enhanced award by requisite deposit with the tribunal within thirty days, making it available to be released to the claimants in terms of the impugned award.

¶23

The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.

¶24

R.K.GAUBA, J.

¶25

JANUARY 04, 2018 vk

¶26

Page 3 of 3

¶27

MAC APP. 4/2013

Ganesh Kumar & Ors. v. Chalakan & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Kumar & Ors. v. Chalakan & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Vs Ranjeet Singh (Deceased) Thr Lrs

Vinod Vs Ranjeet Singh (Deceased) Thr Lrs

Gandhi Smarak Nidhi & Anr. Vs Anil Dutta Mishra

Pan India Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Indra Chauhan & Ors.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Arjun & Ors.