in motor accident claim. the deceased is aged 26 years, mother 55 years, father 58 years, salary of deceased Rs.2,40,000/- Their lord ships enhanced compensation = 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


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515