MAC. APP. 61/2015. Case: Nathia and Ors. Vs Imtiaz and Ors.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | MAC. APP. 61/2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Navneet Goyal and Rupika Singh, Advocates |
| Judges | G. P. Mittal, J. |
| Issue | Motor Vehicles Act |
| Judgement Date | February 09, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
G. P. Mittal, J.
CM. APPL 939/2015 (delay)
1. Notice.
2. Mr. Saral Chaturvedi, Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent no.3 accepts notice.
3. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 69 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
4. The application stands disposed of.
MAC. APP. 61/2015
5. Notice.
6. Mr. Saral Chaturvedi, Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent no.3 accepts notice.
7. The learned counsel for the Appellants states that it is a short matter and can be disposed of at this stage. The learned counsel for Respondent no.3 has no objection to the same.
8. On finding that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.DL-1LK-7011 which resulted in fatal injuries to the deceased Nawab @ Nabi Baksh, the Claims Tribunal in the absence of any evidence with regard to the deceased's income took the minimum wages of an unskilled worker as Rs.7,722/- per month, made addition of 30% towards future prospects, deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and applied the multiplier of 13 to determine the loss of dependency.
9. The compensation awarded is extracted hereunder:
10. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the Claims Tribunal erred in making deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Since the legal representatives were five, deduction towards personal and living expenses should have been 1/4. It is also urged that the compensation awarded towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection is on the lower side and it ought to have been Rs.1,00,000/- each in view of Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54.
11. This is not disputed that out of four sons of the deceased, three were working and the fourth though major was stated to be not working. The sons aged 26, 28 and 30 who were working were not considered to be dependent and the fourth son aged 24 years, since he was not working was considered to be dependent and hence, deduction of 1/3rd was made towards personal and living expenses. Hence, major working sons were rightly not considered as dependents. Hence, deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses was rightly made by the Claims Tribunal.
12. The question of grant of future prospects was dealt with by this Court at great length in HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Lalta Devi and Ors. MAC APP No. 189/ 2014 decided on 12.01.2015. Paras 8 to 21 of the report in Lalta Devi (supra) are 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 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial