Delhi High Court
Suman And Ors. vs Inderjeet And Ors. on 20 April, 2007
Equivalent citations: II (2007) ACC 732, 2008 ACJ 970
Author: P Nandrajog
Bench: P Nandrajog
JUDGMENT
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. On 8.3.1987, Shiv Dayal aged 29 years died in an accident involving truck bearing No. DIL-3116. He was survived by his wife, a minor daughter and parents.
2. Dependents filed a claim petition under Section 140 read with Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988 claiming compensation in sum of Rs. 11,28,000/- on account of the death of the deceased. Mother of the deceased died during the pendency of the claim petition.
3. Vide award dated 29.3.2004, compensation in sum of Rs. 2,68,800/- has been awarded by the learned Tribunal.
4. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, dependents have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. Deceased was employed as a technician with M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. when the accident in question took place.
6. In order to prove the income of the deceased at the time of the accident as also his futuristic income, salary certificate (Ex. PW-1/2) issued by the employer of the deceased was placed on record.
7. S.K. Chatkara, Assistant, M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and proved the said salary certificate. In his testimony, he reiterated the particulars contained in the said salary certificate. He deposed that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,611/-per month at the time of the accident.
8. Brother of the deceased stepped into the witness box as PW-7 and proved three certificates (Ex. PW-7/A, Ex. PW-7/B & Ex. PW-7/C) issued by the employer of the deceased wherein deceased was congratulated by his employer for the excellent work done by him.
9. Taking note of the testimony of S.K. Chatkara, PW-1, Tribunal has taken income of the deceased at the time of the accident as Rs. 1,611/-per month (rounded of to Rs. 1,600/-per month). No deduction has been made for personal spending of the deceased. Multiplier of 14 has been adopted by the Tribunal. Thus, total loss of dependence has been determined by Tribunal as Rs. 2,68,800/-.
10. Learned Counsel for the appellant has urged two grounds in support of his contention that compensation awarded is inadequate. First, that while determining monthly income of the deceased, Tribunal has not correctly appreciated salary certificate Ex. PW-1/2. Second, that the Tribunal erred in not giving benefit of futuristic income of the deceased while determining loss of dependence. Counsel contended that salary certificate, Ex. PW-1/2 shows the prospects of future increase in the income of the deceased.
11. In order to properly appreciate arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant, it is pertinent to note salary certificate Ex. PW-1/2. The same reads as under:
As required by the Court, the details of late Sh. S.D. Sharma, Staff
No. 105953, an Ex-Technician of Maruti Udyog Limited are given below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Name : Late Sh. S.D. Sharma
2. Date of Birth : 5.4.1958
3. Scale of Pay : Rs. 595-13-660-18-810/-
4. Qualification : Matric + ITI
5. Age at the time of death : 29 years approx.
6. Date of retirement : 30.4.2016
7. Pay an allowances as on 1.1.88 : Rs. 1731.11
1.1.89 : Rs. 1865.85
1.1.90 : Rs. 2490.10
1.1.91 : Rs. 2710.90
(Pay and allowances include
Basic, DA, HRA, CCA, Fixed
DA/I.R.,TPT. Subsidy and
Washing All.)
9. Other benefits : (i) PF as per Employees
Provident Fund Act.
(ii) Gratuity as per
Gratuity Act.
(iii) L.T.C.
(iv) Medical facilities
(v) Leave Encashment
12. A foot note appended to the certificate reads as under:
It will however not be possible to project the earnings of the employees beyond 1991 since we have wage Revisions periodically and the employee would have been promoted as well.
13. Salary certificate records that besides salary, deceased was also entitled to get provident fund, gratuity. These benefits would have accrued to the estate of the deceased. Had the deceased lived his full life and retired in the year 2016, then, he would have drawn his gratuity and provident fund benefit whereof would have gone to the family.
14. On the issue of future prospects, I note the judgment of the Supreme Court in the decision reported as Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta and Ors. . In the para 8 of the report, Supreme Court urged as under:
The mere assertion of the claimants that the deceased would have earned more than Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month in the span of his lifetime cannot be accepted as legitimate income unless all the relevant facts are proved by leading cogent and reliable evidence before the MACT. Claimants had to prove that the deceased was in a trade where he would have earned more from time to time or that he had special merits or qualifications or opportunities which would have led to an improvement in his income.
15. Thus, prospect of future increase in the income of the deceased has to be granted when there is evidence showing the same.
16. In the instant case, salary certificate (Ex. PW-1/2) as also certificates of excellence issued by the employer of the deceased (Ex. PW-7/A to Ex. PW-7/C) clearly show the prospects of future increase in the income of the deceased. Thus, the same needs to be considered and granted.
17. A perusal of the salary certificate further shows that had deceased been alive, his salary would have risen by 40% in just 4 years.
18. Deceased had 29 years of service left at the time of his death in the said road accident.
19. Taking note of the fact that apart from monthly wages a deferred income in the form of gratuity and provident fund would have flown to the deceased, I treat his monthly income at Rs. 1700/- when he died.
20. Taking note of the considerable increase in the salary of the deceased in 4 years, the young age of the deceased and the fact that the deceased was a highly skilled technician as evident from certificates of excellence issued by the employer of the deceased, it could reasonably be expected that his salary would have gone up by at least 4 times by the time he would have left gainful employment. Thus, I take mean average monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,250/- (Rs. 1,700/- + Rs. 6,800 (4 times increase in salary) ÷ 2 = Rs. 4,250/-).
21. Deducting 1/3rd towards personal spending of the deceased, average loss of dependence comes to Rs. 2,833/-. Applying multiplier of 14, total loss of dependence comes to Rs. 5,09,940/- (Rs. 2,833 x 12 x 14 = Rs. 4,75,944/-).
22. Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,68,800/- for loss of dependence. Thus, compensation for loss of dependence is enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 2,07,144/-.
23. Noting that Tribunal has awarded no sum under the head 'non-pecuniary damages', I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under the said head.
24. Net effect is that compensation stands enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 2,17,144/-.
25. Appeal stands disposed of by enhancing the compensation by a sum of Rs. 2,17,144/-.
26. Enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from date of claim petition till date of realization.
27. No costs.
28. LCR be returned.
