Deepti Katyal v. Jog Raj & ORS

Deepak Kumar 2025.06.16 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-4298-2017 -24.

In view of above, this Court finds that the Tribunal fell in error in ignoring the documentary evidence on record and assessing the income of the deceased on the basis of D.C. rates. As per document, Exhibit PW7/A, income of the deceased has been shown to be Rs.2,04,000/- per annum. Resultantly, the compensation payable to the claimant needs to be revisited and re-assessed.

5.

As per the Income Tax Returns, income of the deceased is taken to be Rs.2,04,000/- per annum. As per MLR, the age of the deceased Kiran Sehgal, at the time of death was 54 years thus, 10% future prospects need to be added. Deduction of 1/3rd needs to be applied to calculate the dependency. Multiplier of 11 has been rightly awarded as per law laid down by the Apex Court in 'Smt. Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another' (2009) 6 SCC 121. Claimant shall also be entitled for an amount of Rs.48,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. She is also awarded an amount of Rs.18,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.18,000/- for funeral expenses. Interest will abide by the order of the Tribunal. 6.

Needless to say any amount already paid to the claimant/ appellant, in execution of the award shall be set off. 7.

With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, the instant appeal is disposed off.

May 13, 2025 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No Deepak Kumar 2025.06.16 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document