Jagrati Devi Vs. Gulfam

Jagrati Devi vs Gulfam

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Delhi Decided Sep 20, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/716025

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/716025
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Decided On: Sep 20, 2006
Case Number: F.A.O. No. 226 of 2003
Subject: Motor Vehicles
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed
Acts & sections: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 173

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jagrati Devi

Advocate S.N. Parashar, Adv

Respondent

Gulfam

Advocate R.K. Kataria, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 173
Reported In: 2007ACJ2066

Excerpt

- sanjiv khanna, j.1. this appeal under section 173 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 has been filed for enhancement of compensation awarded vide award dated 16.4.2004 on the death of mahabir singh. mahabir singh who expired on 24.10.1999 was 52 years of age at that time.2. mahabir singh was working as assistant sub-inspector with delhi police and was earning rs. 9,641 per month. learned claims tribunal has awarded compensation of rs. 7,52,400 on account of loss of dependency and has awarded rs. 25,000 for mental pain and agony, rs. 5,000 for funeral expenses, rs. 5,000 for loss to estate and rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium. in all payment of rs. 7,92,400 has been awarded and interest at the rate of 7 per cent has also been awarded.3. while awarding the compensation the learned tribunal has applied the multiplier of 11.4. learned counsel for the appellant submits that while awarding compensation learned tribunal has not taken into account future prospects and increase in income. he also submits that non-pecuniary damages of rs. 40,000 are on lower side. lastly, it is submitted that the tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd from the total income of the deceased towards personal expenses, while calculating loss of dependency.5. as per second schedule to the motor vehicles act, 1988, 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses is normally deducted while calculating loss of dependency. this deduction is made as compensation is paid for loss of dependency, i.e., loss to the dependants and, thereforee, necessarily the expenditure that the deceased was incurring on himself should be reduced from his income. everyone incurs expenditure to sustain himself. deceased was 52 years of age at the time of accident/death. i do not think learned tribunal was wrong in deducting 1/3rd from his total income towards personal expenses. similarly, keeping in view the age of the deceased, i do not think future prospects or increase in income was required to be taken into consideration. the.....

Full Judgment

Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed for enhancement of compensation awarded vide award dated 16.4.2004 on the death of Mahabir Singh. Mahabir Singh who expired on 24.10.1999 was 52 years of age at that time.

2. Mahabir Singh was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector with Delhi Police and was earning Rs. 9,641 per month. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 7,52,400 on account of loss of dependency and has awarded Rs. 25,000 for mental pain and agony, Rs. 5,000 for funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000 for loss to estate and Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium. In all payment of Rs. 7,92,400 has been awarded and interest at the rate of 7 per cent has also been awarded.

3. While awarding the compensation the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 11.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that while awarding compensation learned Tribunal has not taken into account future prospects and increase in income. He also submits that non-pecuniary damages of Rs. 40,000 are on lower side. Lastly, it is submitted that the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd from the total income of the deceased towards personal expenses, while calculating loss of dependency.

5. As per Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses is normally deducted while calculating loss of dependency. This deduction is made as compensation is paid for loss of dependency, i.e., loss to the dependants and, thereforee, necessarily the expenditure that the deceased was incurring on himself should be reduced from his income. Everyone incurs expenditure to sustain himself. Deceased was 52 years of age at the time of accident/death. I do not think learned Tribunal was wrong in deducting 1/3rd from his total income towards personal expenses. Similarly, keeping in view the age of the deceased, I do not think future prospects or increase in income was required to be taken into consideration. The deceased was to retire at the age of 58 years, i.e., within the next 6 years. Moreover, I do find that Tribunal has applied multiplier of 11, which is on the higher side. Keeping in view the total amount awarded to the appellants, the award is just, fair and reasonable.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2006 Same Parties Jagrati Devi vs Gulfam Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge Sanjiv Khanna, J. Acts & Sections Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 173

Motor Vehicles