Partly allowed

Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. Urmila Devi

Delhi HC8 Mar 2019LPA/125/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judges appeared before the High Court of Delhi in a batch of appeals challenging compensation awards for deaths in unprotected manholes. The Court dismissed State appeals and enhanced compensation for heirs via a specific formula involving income multipliers and inflation indices. A separate application seeking acceptance of Banker's cheques for interest was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced for next of kin: LPA 437(11.26L), 438(12.34L), 451(9.77L), 483(12.56L), 790(9.63L). Application for FDR accepted on terms dismissed.

Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Vs Urmila Devi — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAM DATT Signing Date:15.10.2024 16:23 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

¶2

¶3

LPA 438/2017

¶4

URMILA DEVI ..... Appellant

¶5

versus

¶6

GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI ..... Respondent

¶7

LPA 451/2017

¶8

PRATAP & ANR Appellants

¶9

versus

¶10

GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI Respondent

¶11

LPA 483/2017

¶12

NARENDER SINGH& ANR / T , Appellants versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI CORPORATION OF DELHI OF DELHI DELHI Respondent + LPA 790/2017 '

¶13

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI CORPORATION OF DELHI OF DELHI DELHI Respondent

¶14

MD RAFIQUE & ANR;.''/ ' ••••• Appellants versus

¶15

GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI Respondent

¶16

Present: Ms. %bti;Tan^a;:3^d£ tfior petitioners (in LPAs 124/2017, l5$y20i7; 127/2017 & 145/2017). Ms. Aruna Mehta, Adv. for respondents (in LPAs 124/2017, 125/2017, 127/2017 & 145/2017).

¶17

Ms. Aruna Mehta, Adv. for petitioners (in LPAs 437/2017, 438/2017, 451/2017, 483/2017 & 790/2017).

¶18

Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Adv. for respondents (in LPAs 437/2017, 438/2017, 451/2017, 483/2017 & 790/2017).

¶19

Page 2 of 10

¶20

LPA 124/2017 and connected matter

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

¶23

V. KAMESWAR RAO. J. (ORAL)

¶24

As this batch of appeals arises from a common order passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions filed by the next of kin of the deceased, they are being disposed by this common order. Present batch of appeals arises out of similar unfortunate circumstances involving hapless victims, falling in unfenced, unprotected, uncovered and unguarded ganda nala / manhole and succumbing to their deaths. Learned single judge has considered the facts of all the individual: writ .petitions, and, while disposing off the writ petitions vide a comnion order dated 3"' November, 2016, seen fit to award compensation to the claimants/hekt 6^^^ deceased.

¶25

The batch of four appealsr bemg/:,LP^ Nos. 124/2017, 125/2017, 127/2017 and 145/2017 have been'fried by. the Government of NCT of Delhi challenging the order passed by thpTeaifre^^^^ Judge on November 03, 2016 whereby the learned SinglfrJufrg^ii^ the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein and granted cbrhpensation to the respondents herein of varying amounts for the unfortunate deaths of the respective victims, who died after falling in ganda naald /'jriddfiole^-

¶26

The only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (in the aforesaid appeals preferred by the state) respondent is that the appellants cannot be held responsible for the death of the deceased persons as it is the case of the appellants that there are disputed question of fact, which require determination through oral evidence and could not have been gone into by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition.

¶27

LPA 124/2017 and connected matter

¶28

Page 3 of 10

¶29

The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the age of the victims and the minimum wage applicable at that time, based on a formula, as noted by her in different judgments of the Supreme Court has granted the compensation.

¶30

The only plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant does not impress us as it cannot be disputed that the deceased have died after they fell in the ganda naala / manhole which was slippery due to the negligent act of the appellant. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. 6. Insofar as the appeals filed by the uppellahts (being Next of kin of the deceased) being LPA Nos. 437/2047^ 8/2017, 451/2017, 483/2017 and 790/2017, who were the petitidhers'befDfe:%^ Single Judge, are concerned, the same have been/preferred Sonly to the extent of seeking enhancement of compensation so awarded: 'These appeals have challenged the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the compensation awarded is less / on a lower sidei-jTeajme^ for the appellants in these appeals has relied upon a judgnierii tefide|ed'',by us in the case of Rajeev Singhal & Anr. Vs. MCD (East/lMiiiiftinicipal Corp.) & Anr. LPA 379/2017, wherein this Court has, after referring to the various judgments culled out a formula for computationjoTcopape^^ The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:-

¶31

Finally, with regard to quantification of the compensation, we may take note of the principles laid down in the case of Kamla Devi (supra). According to the aforesaid judgment and the principles that can be culled out on the complete reading of the law laid down in the case of Kamla Devi (supra), we find that the courts have evolved a two-tier mechanism for assessment of compensation. The mechanism and the formula laid down have two components. The first is the conventional

¶32

LPA 124/2017 and connected matter

¶33

Page 4 of 10

¶34

sum or the standard compensation and the second is the pecuniary compensation.

XXX

XXX

XXX

We find that in the present case both the appellants herein, namely, the father and the mother are earning. As per income tax returns of the appellants which are available on record, the average annual income of the appellant No.l (father) based on the income tax returns for the three assessment years 2010-2011 to 2012-2013 indicates that his annual average income would come to Rs 2,22,741.66. Similarly, based on the assessment of the income tax returns of the aforesaid three assessment years,, the annual average income of the appellant'No.2 f(mdther) would come to Rs.2,03,471.66. It has been held in boM these cases that the annual income of the parents can be: taken into consideration for assessing the annual income df a fhild. If that be so, we find that the total anmqfiipcpme:: )^^ parents comes to Rs.4,26,213.32 and if tins, if diyid^ we can safely conclude that the armud mcpinf ^ child can be assessed at Rs.2,13,106.66. As per 'the formula laid down for calculating the pecuniaryrloss, a multiplier of 15 can be applied, considering ihefacfthqt thcyictim was 14 years of age. In the case of Variiider Prdsad (siipra), it was noted that as the deceased "would have grown up, his personal expenses would have only risen. The contribution to the household would not have exceeded half of the income. " Accordingly, the total annual income of the victim, as indicated hereinabove, i.e. Rs.2,13,106.66, has to be divided by 2 to arrive at the same and thereafter it has to be multiplied with a factor namely 1.5 to counter inflation and erosion of the value df money and by multiplying it with 15 in terms of the multiplier

¶39

LPA 124/2017 and connected matter

¶40

Page 5 of 10

¶41

provided in the second schedide of the Motor Vehicles Act, the pecuniary compensation worlcs out to Rs.23,97,449.92.

¶42

As far as the standard compensation is concerned, it has to he assessed by taking the average CPI(IW) with base year 1982. In the year 1989 as per Kamla Devi's case, the Index was 171 and according to the Labour Bureau, Government of India's Notification of July, 2014, the CPI(IW) with the base year 2001 for the year 2014 is 252 and the linldng factor based on the general Index for the particular year would be 4.63. Therefore, the CPI(IW) as in July 2014 would be 252 x 4.63 i.e. 1166.76 and applying the formula for calculation of standard compensation, it would be:

¶43

Rs.50,000x 1166.76/171 -RsB,4-1,0:89. "

¶44

The two components of total compensation are to be quantified as follows: ;7'

¶45

Pccnn iarv Compensation::

¶46

A Notional average annual income of deceased
(Of the deceased, or of the parent, if minor)
Deduction
B
(By a factor; on account of decreasing contribution to
faniily income)
C Midtiplier Factor
(In terms ofjudgement of Supreme Court in National.
Indsurdnc& Co. Vs Pfxmay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680)
D Multiplier to counter inflationary aspects

¶47

Page 6 of 10

¶48

L?A 124/2017 and connected matter

¶49

Formula:

¶50

((A-B)XCXD)

¶51

Standard Compensation:

¶52

Formula:

¶53

(50,000 XCPI (IW) Index for the concerned month (with base year 1982))/171

¶54

("171" being the Index Number in 1989) (May also use CPI(IW) Index number with base year 2001 and multiply the same with linking factor 4.63 to arrive at relevant index number with 1982 base)

¶55

For the purpose of arriving at the notional income of the deceased, we may refer to average monthly income of the deceased / parerits of deceased. In LPA 437/2017, appellant No.l, father of the deceased, is stated to be running a shop of Kabari, and earniiig I^.6,0QQ/- per month. The appellant m LPA 438/2017 is stated to have been'.: a I rikshawpuller, earning about Rs.5,000/- per month. Parent of the:feeased;^;in LPA 451/2017 is also stated to be running a Kabari shop, parning/Rsi^pOQ/- per month. Father of the deceased, appellant in LPA 483/2017 .f ^slated to be a motor mechanic earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Mother of the deceased, in LPA790/2017 is state to have passed away during pendency, of th^ appeal, and consequently substituted by her LRs. As on the date of incidence, she is stated to have been working as a labourer, earning Rs.6,000/- per month. We may clarify that the aforenoted figures have been taken either from the appeals itself (LPA 437/2017 & LPA 438/2017) or from the compilations as filed by Ms. Aruna Melita, learned counsel for the appellants, (pursuant to submissions made during the course of arguments) which have been taken on record.

¶56

LPA 124/2017 and connected matter

¶57

Page 7 of 10

¶58

On the basis of the aforesaid formula and taking into account the income as noticed above, we proceed to compute the compensation as under:-

¶59

For Pecuniary Compensation:

¶60

Appeal	A	B	C	D	Compensation E (Usingformula notedabove)
LPA 437/2017	6000(per month) (72000 annual)	...1/2(Being unmarried)	18	1.5	Rs.9,72,000/- (36000x18x1.5)
LPA 438/2017	5000(per month) (60000 annual)	1/3(Being: married);L • ' '?■/- ':> '	18 /if-f:	1.5	Rs.10,80,000/- (4001)0x18x1.5)
LPA 451/2017	6000(per month) (72000 annual),	1/2(Being ■• unmairied)	^•45	1.5	Rs.8,10,000/- (36000x15x1.5)
LPA 483/2017	8000(per month) (96000 annual)	1/2(Being unmarried).	15	1.5	Rs.lO,80,000/- (48000x15x1.5)
LPA 790/2017	6000(per month)	1/2(Being unmarried)	15	1.5	Rs.8,10,000/- (36000x15x1.5)

¶61

Page 8 of 10

¶62

LPA 124/2017 and connected matter

¶63

(72000 annual)

¶64

For Standard Compensation;

¶65

Appeal	Relevant CPI(IW) Index Number	Compensation F (Using formulanoted above)
LPA 437/2017	529 (June2005)	r:s.154678/-^
LPA 438/2017	529 (June205)	Rs.F5467.8/-
LPA 451/2017	574 (August 2006)'	Rs.I6783b/^
LPA 483/2017	602 (June2007)	Rs.1.76023/;
LPA 790/2017	525 (March 2005)	Rs.153508/-

¶66

Total Compensation:

¶67

Page 9 of 10

¶68

LPA 124/2017 and connected matter

¶69

Appeal	Total Compensation (E+F)
LPA 437/2017	Rs.1126678/-
LPA 438/2017	Rs.1234678/-
LPA 451/2017	Rs.977836/-
LPA 483/2017	Rs.1256023/-
LPA .790/2017	Rs.963508/-

¶70

Appellants are therefore held to, be entitled to compensation as computed above, along with interest @ per a to be calculated from the date of the presentation of the writ petition actual payment is made.

¶71

Appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

CHIEF JUSTICE

MARCH 08,2019/7g

~
<5^ S)'

$-26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 125/2017

¶78

GOVERNMENT OF NOT OF DELHI & ANR Appellant Through Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Advocate, versus URMILA DEVI Respondent Through

¶79

CORAM:

¶80

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

¶81

ORDER % 27.05.2019

¶82

C.M. No.25971/2019 (directions!

¶83

This application has been filed by the GNCTD praying inter alia that a direction be issued to the Registrar General to accept a Banker's cheque to the tune of Rs.23,39,373/- and place it in an FDR till the respondents claim the same.

¶84

We are not inclined to entertain the request made in the present application as it is silent on the aspect of the nature of efforts made by the appellant/GNCTD to get in touch with the respondents for releasing the payments. An apprehension that the interest will continue to mount till the amount is paid to the respondents, cannot be a ground to file such an application, without first making genuine efforts to trace him

¶85

The prayer made in the application is declined and the same is dismissed.

¶86

HIMA KOHLI, J.

¶87

MAY 27, 2019/NA

¶88

TALWANT SINGH J.

Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. Urmila Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. Urmila Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navin Manwadhikar Sanrakshan Sansthan Vs the Union of India & Ors.

Saurav Aggarwal and Ors. Vs Mata Krishnawati Memorial Educational Society (Regd) and Ors.

Mukesh Saini Vs Madan Lal Saini & Ors.

Pawan Kumar Vs the State (Nct of Delhi )

Bse Ltd. Vs Abdullah Ali Balsharaf & Ors.

Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Vs MD Rafique & Anr.