Delhi High Court
Sushil Kumar & Ors vs Rajbir Singh & Ors on 19 February, 2009
Author: J.R. Midha
6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC APP.No.510/2008
Date of decision:19th February, 2009
%
SUSHIL KUMAR & ORS ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. O.P. Mannie, Adv.
versus
RAJBIR SINGH & ORS ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. (name not given), Adv.
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 impugned award
dated 7th May, 2008 passed by the Learned Tribunal whereby
the compensation of Rs.5,67,492/- has been awarded to the
appellants. The appellants seek enhancement of the award.
2. The road accident dated 10th February, 2005 between
truck bearing No.HR-38-E-1051 and the motorcycle resulted in
the death of pillion rider, Babita.
3. The deceased was aged 28 years at the time of the
accident and was survived by her husband and three minor
children who filed the claim petition before the Learned
Tribunal.
4. The Learned Tribunal computed the compensation by
taking the minimum wages of Rs.3,804.90. 1/3rd was
deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and
multiplier of 18 was applied for computing the loss on
dependency at Rs.5,47,992/-. Rs.2,000/- was awarded
towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of
consortium, Rs.12,500/- towards loss of estate and loss of love
and affection. The total compensation awarded was
Rs.5,67,492/-.
5. The appellants have challenged the impugned award on
the following grounds:-
(i) The Learned Tribunal has not taken into
consideration the increase in minimum wages over
the period of time to meet the price index and
inflation rate to compute the compensation.
(ii) Very low amount has been awarded towards loss of
consortium, loss of estate and loss of love and
affection.
6. In the case of Kanwar Devi vs. Bansal Roadways,
2008 ACJ 2182, this Court took judicial notice of the increase
of minimum wages to meet the price index and inflation rate.
The Court has taken the view that the minimum wages get
doubled over the period of 10 years and increase in minimum
wages is not akin to future prospects.
7. In the case of Lekh Raj vs Suram Singh, 2007 ACJ
2165, this Court took judicial notice of the increase in
minimum wages and the compensation was computed on the
basis of the said increase.
8. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited
vs. Renu Devi, III (2008) ACC 134, this Court took the
judicial notice of the fact that the minimum wages get almost
doubled over the period of 10 years and the compensation
was computed on that basis.
9. Following the aforesaid judgments, the income of the
deceased is calculated by taking the average of minimum
wages and the double of the same.
10. The appellants are entitled to the compensation of
Rs.8,21,858.40/- towards loss of dependency as per
computation given below: -
Minimum wages as Rs.3,804.90
on 01.02.2005
(+) Double of Rs.3,804.90 Rs.7,609.80
Total Rs.11,414.70
Divided by 2 Rs.5,707.35
(-) Personal expenses @ 1/3rd Rs.1,902.45
Dependency (Per month) Rs.3,804.90
Annual Dependency (Multiplied by 12) Rs.4,568.80
Total Dependency (Multiplier of 18) Rs.8,21,858.40
11. The next point urged by learned counsel for the
appellant is that very low amount of compensation has been
awarded for loss of consortium, loss of estate and loss of love
and affection.
12. The learned counsel refers to and relies upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Kaur
vs. Hira Nand Sindhi, 2007 ACJ 2123, where the Apex
Court awarded interest @9% per annum on Rs.50,000/-
towards loss of consortium relating to an accident on 1982.
13. The learned counsel also refers to the United India
Insurace Company Ltd. vs Sulochana, III (2007) ACC 50
(DB), where the Division Bench of the Madras High Court
awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium and
Rs.25,000/- to each of the legal representative towards loss of
love and affection.
14. The counsel for the respondent in reply refers to and
relies upon the judgments of National Insurance Co. Ltd.
vs. M/s Swaranlata Dass, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 743, Om
Kumari vs. Shish Pal, 2007 ACJ 938, Annai Sathya
Transport Corp. vs. Rahamathunnisa, 2008 ACJ 146,
Dr.Pramodchandra vs. Ashwani Arora, 2007 ACJ 959 and
Vikram Singh vs. Manvendra Singh, 2007 ACJ 950, in
which the lower amount has been awarded towards loss of
consortium.
15. The compensation for loss of consortium and loss of love
and affection are non-pecuniary damages and they do not
form part of pecuniary damages.
16. In the facts of this case, I award compensation of
Rs.25,000/- to appellant No.1 for loss of consortium and
Rs.10,000/- to each of the appellants towards loss of love and
affection.
17. The appeal is partially allowed. The compensation is
enhanced from Rs.5,67,492/- to Rs. 8,88,858/- (Rs.8,21,858 +
Rs.25,000 + Rs.10,000 + Rs.10,000 + Rs.10,000 + Rs.10,000
+ Rs.2,000) along with interest @ 7% per annum from the
date of filing of petition till realization.
18. The enhanced amount along with interest be deposited
within 30 days and the same be released to the appellants in
the same proportion in which the original impugned award
was passed. 50% of the total share awarded to appellant No.1
shall remain in FDR for a period of 5 years and remaining 50%
be released to appellant No.1. The amount awarded to
appellant Nos.2 to 4 shall remain in FDR till they attain the
age of majority. The interest on the fixed deposits be released
to the beneficiaries on periodical basis.
J.R. MIDHA, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2009
mk
