Delhi High Court
Sushma Madan And Ors. vs Delhi Transport Corporation And ... on 17 January, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007 ACJ 972
Author: P Nandrajog
Bench: P Nandrajog
JUDGMENT
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. CM. No. 8655 of 2006 : Allowed as prayed for.
F.A.O. No. 28 of 1999 : The deceased Ramesh Madan, aged 46 years, died as a result of a road accident involving a motor vehicle on 21.6.1991. He was survived by his wife, two daughters and his mother.
2. Since the wife and the daughters seek enhancement of the compensation granted, I need not note the facts pertaining to the accident and the findings returned as to what occasioned the accident.
3. Salary certificate of the deceased, Exh. PW 1/1, evidenced the monthly income of Rs. 2,881.
4. Treating Exh. PW 1/1 as the proof of income of the deceased, learned Tribunal held that 1/3rd thereof can safely be assumed to be the personal expenses of the deceased. Deducting Rs. 900, Rs. 1,900 per month was treated as loss of dependency to the family.
5. Noting that deceased was 46 years of age and applying the multiplier of 12, compensation worked out was Rs. 1,900 x 12 x 12 = Rs. 2,73,000.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that future prospects have not been taken note of. Counsel further contends that keeping in view the extended family of the deceased, 1/3rd could not have been appropriated towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is further urged that nothing has been awarded on account of loss of consortium to the wife and loss of father's love and affection to the children.
7. The deceased was an employee of Delhi Government. Learned Counsel for the appellants states that after the appeal was admitted, the appellants obtained a certificate from the Pay & Accounts Department of Government of NCT of Delhi on 16.7.1999. The same shows how pay scales improved from time to time pursuant to the implementation of 4th and 5th Pay Commissions.
8. Counsel states that the said certificate be looked into and relied upon for enhancing the compensation on account of future prospects of the deceased.
9. I am afraid, this evidence cannot be looked into for the reason, it would become an unending story.
10. Merely because some time is consumed in disposal of the appeal does not mean that additional evidence of the kind can be brought on record and looked into.
11. To bring him to points, suppose the claimants after receiving the compensation and having filed an appeal unfortunately die as a result of accident, would it be open to the insurance company to say that recovery should be ordered in its favor for the reason, the claimants have not lived the estimated life they were expected to live.
12. That is the reason why the law has developed that future prospects have to be looked into by the court at the time of making of the award.
13. In the cases reported as General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas and Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav , considering that the deceased were in government service, Supreme Court held that it would be safe to presume with a futuristic vision that income of the deceased would be doubled.
14. As noted hereinabove, the deceased Ramesh Madan, was aged 46 years when he died. He had 12 years to serve and earn. Being in government service, it would be safe to presume that assuming he earned no promotions, yearly increments in the pay scale would have accrued to him.
15. I accordingly treat the mean average income of the deceased as Rs. 4,321.50 per month. Considering the extended family of the deceased, I hold that it would be reasonable to appropriate 1/4th of the income of the deceased for his personal expenses. Thus, loss of dependency works out to Rs. 3,241.12 (rounded off to Rs. 3,250). Applying the multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal, the monetary loss to the family comes to Rs. 3,250 x 12 x 12 = Rs. 4,68,000.
16. I award a lump sum amount of Rs. 15,000 to the wife and the children on account of loss of consortium to the wife and loss of love and affection to children. Total compensation, therefore, comes to Rs. 4,83,000.
17. As per award, compensation allowed is Rs. 2,73,000.
18. Compensation is accordingly enhanced by Rs. 2,10,000.
19. The enhanced compensation shall be appropriated as per the award in the same ratio but need not be invested inasmuch as nearly 16 years have lapsed since the deceased died. The children have now attained majority.
20. The enhanced compensation sum of Rs. 2,10,000 shall be paid together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation.
21. LCR, if any received, be returned.
