Anupama And ORS. v. Jagpal And ORS.
! " ! ####
!$%& !&'()(*+
*-.$/$$*0%1&2) ..&33$*%) 4) $5.$3$*0%1&2) &).*0&*%) + 6 7 "4
!
""""
"$)18(2(*51 $%129 2$3
!
#$ %
& '
((
)
#*+ ,#*#(-.
*/
0
,1
2 3+ +
4
rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle bearing No.HR-38E-9509 (for short 'offending vehicle'), owned by respondents No.2 and 2(a), which was insured with respondent No.3. $
#
5.
!" #$%# &' ()** + , - . / . / / ./()** .
( )* 0 1 ! #
+
#
,#*#(-.
#
,1
2 3+ 6 */
0 7 $
#
+
(
" 8
#
8
#
"
9
+
+
# "
%&
!
"+
"
1 "
" .
+
"
#
" 8
:1
;
" < ;
'
!" #$ ! !
% &'(!')$ !# #
#
1 = >
1?
#
"#
9
#
#
+
"
=
+
9
"
"#
"
+
#
8
"4 + .
As per version of the claimants, deceased namely Rajender Kumar Yadav was working with the Railways and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. To prove his income, the claimants have examined PW3 Chander Kanta Sharma, Senior Clerk, Railway Station, Ballabhgarh, who deposed that deceased Rajender Kumar Yadav was working with Railway Department and was posted as Pointsman B Grade and his salary in the month of May, 2002 was Rs.6683/- including DA, HRA, CA, NDA and TPT and she tendered the salary certificate Ex.P5 and salary slip Ex.P6. No evidence to prove to the contrary was led by the
: respondents. The Tribunal also relied upon the salary certificate Ex.P5 in which the break-up of the monthly salary is as under:- Basic Pay :
3440/- DA :
1686/- HRA :
1032/- CA :
125/- NDA :
300/- TPT :
100/- ______________ 6683/- ________________ 9.
As per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appeal (Civil) 5830 of 2007 - National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava and others, only the conveyance allowance is to be deducted and all other allowances including HRA are a part of monthly salary. After deducting a sum of Rs.125/- which was paid as conveyance allowance, the monthly income comes out to Rs.6683/- - Rs.125/- = Rs.6558/-.
!7"
+
"
, "@
#7/
"
+ "< ;
'
A# *+ , - '.!&'/
!% 0 4
'1 23'44235'1 23
B . # ,7-.
=
# "
,*!!-.%,*!-..,7-.&
The petition in hand has been instituted by wife, five children and parents of the deceased. However, as per law laid down in 2009(6) SCC 121 - Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, father cannot be termed as dependent upon his deceased son and he is thus not entitled to any compensation except on account of filial consortium. Accordingly, it is held that deceased has left behind seven dependents and 1/5th of the income thus has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. ,( =
# "
"
,(*( %,*!!C,(&% ,-.&
"
' 623
& $0 - 7#
(
!7"
"
#
'6 623' 6238'
! #
%
&
'
23
'6 23
#'4 23 '4 23
=
# / 0- 7'
# $ % &'$
):
;&$'13)) .$2&*%$3 (3($3'*)2%(-/ $ $ $ &()'* +, - *-
+... <
*&(&)+))/--0'(
$ )=9:9 :
;*, ) . & (1 2, 0((((1 2 , &'((((1 +
,
"#
-
5.
S.No.
Under Head Compensation awarded by the High Court 1.
Monthly income of deceased Rs.6558/- per month 2.
Age of deceased 35 years 3.
Future prospects @ 50% Rs.3279/- 4.
Income Tax Rs.500/- 4.
Total income after deducting income tax Rs.9337/- per month 5.
Number of dependents 6.
Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (1/5th) Rs.1867.40 per month 7.
Annual loss of dependency Rs.89640/- (Rs.7470 X 12) 8.
Multiplier 9.
Compensation on account of Loss of dependency Rs.14,34,240/- (Rs.89640/- X 16) 10.
Compensation under conventional heads to wife Rs.70,000/- 11.
Consortium to children, mother and father of deceased Rs.2,80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- X 7) 12.
Total Compensation
)=9:9 :
; 13.
Interest 9% 7 "# "
-
'
6 623
' 6 623'
6 6233 '
23 + +
9
#
0 "
"
!#1 "
=
"B
# ,(#-.
#,#-.
-
( "
"
9
"
< ;
'
DE % + & 7!
"::# ;
< , - $7 & = , !
!
(! 9
"
"
%$& 1
%&# "#
"$)18(2(*51 $%12 -05& $2'1 9
2&*- 3/ %1 41 3,5 41