Delhi High Court
Smt. Sunita Devi And Ors. vs Shri Mahender Sing And Ors. on 9 January, 2008
Author: K Gambhir
Bench: K Gambhir
JUDGMENT
Kailash Gambhir, J.
1. By way of this present appeal the appellants seek to challenge the impugned Award whereby the compensation of Rs. 2,07,000/- was awarded in favor of the appellants. Feeling aggrieved with the amount of compensation the appellants preferred the present appeal to seek enhancement in the compensation. Brief summary of the facts to deal with the contention of the parties are:
On 22.6.1987, Shri Laxman Dass was going on his two wheeler scooter bearing registeration No. DEN 2992 from the direction of Mool Chand side towards Safdarjung Hospital. At about 7.25 p.m., he reached the crossing of Ring Road Andrews Ganj and stopped the scooter as there was a red signal. At that very moment, DCM Toyota Matador bearing registration No. HRP 2876 driven by its dirver in a very rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed came from the direction of Mool Chand without blowing any horn or signal and struck against the stationary scooter of the deceased from behind. As a result Shri Laxman Dass fell down and received fatal injuries. From the accident spot he was removed to Safdarjung Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries on the same night.
2. Counsel for the appellants contends that the correct income of the deceased was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Counsel contends that the deceased was the partner in the firm M/s Guru Nank Provisional Store and as per the evidence produced on record his share of profit in the said partnership business was determined by the Tribunal as Rs. 14519.98. Main thrust of the argument of counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has not taken into account the future prospects for correctly assessing the income. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the deposition of PW 4, Shri Lal Singh, partner of the said firm who in his deposition stated that the firm was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/-. The said witness in his cross examination also deposed that the deceased would have earned a sum of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. to Rs. 6,000/- p.m. from his business, had he not met with the accident.
3. The appellants are further aggrieved that the Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards expenses incurred for funeral, no compensation has been awarded for the loss to the estate and love and affection and while only Rs. 15,000/- has been given towards loss of consortium. Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa counsel for the respondent although made a request for adjournment but the same has already been declined as on the last date the matter was adjourned only at her request. Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, counsel for the respondent Insurance company has placed reliance on the judgment of Bijoy Kumar Duggar v. Bidya Dhar Dutta case and contends that for granting any compensation towards future prospects necessary material has to be placed and proved on record by the claimants. Counsel further contends that no such documentary evidence so as to determine the future prospects of the deceased was placed on record by the appellants and, therefore, in the absence of the same the future prospects have rightly not been considered by the Tribunal. As regards the grant of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium, the contention of the counsel for the respondent is that the accident had occurred in the year 1987 and the Award in the present case was passed in the year 1994, therefore, the said amount of Rs. 15,000/- cannot be considered to be on the lower side.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length and have perused the record.
5. The Tribunal in the impugned Award has taken into account the income of the deceased at Rs. 1500/- per month although the appellants had proved the income of the deceased as Rs. 1210/- per month. The testimony of PW 4, Mr. Lal Singh is of no help to the appellants as they failed to produce and prove on record any document which could show that there was an increase in the profit of the said partnership firm. The partnership business as per own case of the appellants had commenced in the year 1983 and the said deposition was made in the year 1994, but no substantial evidence to prove the growing profits of the said partnership firm was placed on record before the Tribunal. It is a settled legal position that unsubstantiated bald statement without the help of any documentary or other material cannot be considered to assess the income of the deceased. Reliance placed by the counsel for the appellants on the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and Ors. is also of no help as in the said case the Apex Court has given the directions to award the future prospects considering the evidence on this aspect placed on record. In the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bijoy Kumar Duggar's case it has been held that future prospects can only be considered in a case where sufficient evidence to this effect has been led by the claimant. The relevant para of the said judgment is referred as under:
The mere assertion of the claimants that the deceased would have earned more than Rs. 8000 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 MACT. The claimants have 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. There is no evidence produced on record by the claimants regarding future prospects of increase of income in the course of employment or business or profession, as the case may be.
6. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find myself in agreement with the contention of counsel for the appellant to grant any enhanced compensation towards loss of financial dependence for considering the future prospects of the deceased. In any case about Rs. 300/- enhancement has already been made by the Tribunal while considering the income of the deceased.
7. Perusal of the Award also shows that no funeral expenses has been awarded by the Tribunal. The Award in the present case was passed in the year 1994. I, therefore, consider a sum of Rs. 5000/- adequate towards the funeral expenses. No compensation has been granted towards the loss of love and affection and loss of estate. Rs. 15,000/- is granted towards this head of claim. In any case of the matter I consider Rs. 15,000/- is a meager amount towards the loss of consortium as the death of a young man of 30 years has taken place, who is survived by his young widow. The amount of Rs. 15,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-. Counsel for the appellants states that appellant No. 4, mother of the deceased has already died. Let the differential amount be paid in favor of the remaining appellants along with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till realisation.
8. With these directions the appeal is disposed of.
