Delhi High Court
Gulshan & Ors. vs G.S.Gill & Ors. on 11 February, 2009
Author: J.R. Midha
7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No.294/2002
Date of decision:11th February, 2009
%
GULSHAN & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through : Mr. Raman Kapoor, Adv. for
Mr. Gagan Gupta, Adv.
versus
G.S.GILL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Kamal Deep, Adv. for R - 2.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may Yes
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be Yes
reported in the Digest?
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The appellants have challenged the award of the
Learned Tribunal whereby the Learned Tribunal has awarded
Rs.4,40,000/- to the appellants. The appellants seek
enhancement of the award amount.
2. On 21st March, 1994, the deceased Suresh Kumar was
riding his two wheeler scooter bearing No.DL4SK 1013 near
North Avenue when another scooter bearing No.DBZ-4295 hit
him causing grievous injuries which resulted in his death on
28th March, 1994.
3. The deceased was survived by his wife, two minor
children and parents who filed the claim petition before the
Learned Tribunal. The deceased was aged 30 years at the
time of the accident and was running the business of painting
in the name and style of M/s Sachin Art Services.
4. The deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month at the
time of the accident. However, the Learned Tribunal took the
income of the deceased at Rs.2,807/- per month (Rs.33,685/-
per annum) on the basis of the Income Tax return, Ex.PW-7/A
for the year 1994-1995 in which the income was shown as
Rs.33,685/- per annum. The Learned Tribunal applied the
multiplier of 18 after deducting 1/3rd personal expenses of the
deceased. The compensation for loss of dependency was
computed at Rs.4,05,000/-. The Learned Tribunal further
awarded Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.25,000/-
towards loss of love and affection, loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses.
6. The appellants have filed this appeal on the following
grounds: -
(i) The future prospects have not been taken into
consideration for computing the loss of
dependency.
(ii) The personal expenses of the deceased be taken
as 1/5th instead of 1/3rd as the deceased has left
behind five legal representatives, namely, his wife,
two minor sons and parents.
(iii) Enhancement of the compensation amount for loss
of love and affection, loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses.
7. The income of the deceased is almost equal to the
minimum wages for a skilled worker. In the cases of Kanwar
Devi vs. Bansal Roadways, 2008 ACJ 2182, Lekh Raj vs
Suram Singh, 2007 ACJ 2165 and National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Renu Devi III (2008) ACC 134, it
has been held by this Court that the Court should take judicial
notice of increase in minimum wages to meet the price index
and inflation rate. It was further held that the minimum wages
get doubled over the period of 10 years and increase in
minimum wages is not akin to future prospects. In the case of
Sarla Dixit vs. Balwant Yadav, 1996 SCC 1224, the Apex
Court took the future prospects into consideration by taking
the average of the income of the deceased and the double of
it.
8. Following the aforesaid judgments, the average annual
income of the deceased is computed as under: -
Rs.33,685/- + Rs.33,685/- X 2 = Rs.50,527.50.
9. With respect to the personal expenses of the deceased,
the deduction of 1/3rd as per personal expenses is not a thumb
rule. Where the number of legal representatives are more,
the Courts have deducted lesser personal expenses.
Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment in the
case of Surinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Inder Kapoor, II (2004)
ACC 866, wherein personal expenses were deducted to the
tune of 2/11.
10. The deceased had two brothers and, therefore, the
responsibility of maintaining the parents is of all the three
brothers. The parents were not solely dependent on the
deceased as they had two other sons who also had the duty to
look after their parents. The deduction of 1/3rd of the income
of the deceased towards personal expenses, therefore, does
not call for any interference.
11. The Learned Tribunal has awarded lum-sum amount of
Rs.25,000/- for loss of love and affection, loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses. The counsel for the
appellant refers to and relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Kaur Vs.
Hiranand Sindhi, 2007 ACJ 2123, wherein interest @9%
per annum has been awarded on Rs.50,000/- for loss of
consortium in relation of an accident of 1982. In the case of
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sulochana III 2007
ACC 50 (DB), the Madras High Court awarded Rs.50,000/- for
loss of consortium. In the case of New India Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Amresh Kumari, 2005 ACJ 538, this Court
awarded Rs.50,000/- for loss of consortium.
12. Following the aforesaid judgments, I award Rs.50,000/-
towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- to each of the
appellant towards loss of love and affection. The findings of
the learned Trial Court with regard to multiplier and medical
expenses are upheld. Total compensation works out as
under:-
Income of the deceased : Rs.50,530/- p.a. (rounded of)
(Rs.33,685 + Rs.33,685 x 2)
divided by 2.
Deduction towards : Rs. 16,843/- (1/3rd of 50,530/-)
personal expenses
Loss of Dependency : Rs.6,06,366/-
[(Rs.50,530- Rs.16,843)
x 18].
Loss of Consortium : Rs.50,000/-
Loss of love and affection: Rs.50,000/- (Rs.10,000/- to each
of the appellant No.1 to 5).
Medical Expenses : Rs.10,000/-
Total Compensation : Rs.7,16,366/-
13. The appeal is partially allowed by enhancing the award
from Rs.4,40,000/- to Rs. 7,16,366/-. The interest @ 9% per
annum on Rs.4,40,000/- from the date of filing of the petition
till realization is not disturbed. However, the interest on the
enhanced amount would be payable @7.5% from the date of
filing of the petition till realization as per the recent judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal vs. U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation, III 2008 ACC 1 SC.
CM No.640/2002
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CM No.13356/2007 and CM No.13357/2007
Already disposed of.
J.R. MIDHA, J
FEBRUARY 11, 2009
mk
