Delhi High Court
Royal Sundaram Alliance ... vs Ranjana Srivastava & Ors on 9 April, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 9th April, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 116/2011
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate
versus
RANJANA SRIVASTAVA & ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.K. Verma, Advocate for
the Respondents No.1 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `18,21,520/-
awarded in favour of the Respondents No.1 to 4 for the death of
the deceased Deepak Srivastava who died in a motor accident
which occurred on 22.12.2005.
2. The deceased Deepak Srivastava was running a refreshment
shop and STD/ISD booth in the name and style of M/s.
Srivastava Corner, Shop No.2, Ring Road bus stand, Satya
Niketan, New Delhi. The First Respondent claimed that the
deceased was earning `20,000/- per month. The Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal(Claims Tribunal) took the deceased
income to be `95,640/- per annum as per the Income Tax Return
for the Assessment Year 2005-06, added 50% towards future
prospects and computed the loss of dependency as `17,21,520/-.
3. The contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant Insurance
Company are:
i) The deceased was a self-employed person; addition
of 50% as future prospects was not permissible as
per Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.
ii) The compensation of `60,000/- awarded for the loss
of love and affection is on the higher side.
4. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, the Income Tax
Returns from the Assessment Year 2001-02 upto the
Assessment Year 2005-06 were proved. These are tabulated
hereunder:
Assessment Year Income (in `)
2001-02 `52,400/-
2002-03 ` 55,480/-
2003-04 ` 57,000/-
2005-06 ` 95,640/-
5. Of course, the Respondents (the Claimants) did not produce on
record the Income Tax Return for the year 2004-05, but there is
no suggestion that the deceased had no income during this
period. A perusal of the various Income Tax Returns would
show that the deceased's income was consistently increasing on
year to year basis. In Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr.(supra), the Supreme Court ruled that in
case of a self employed person, usually future prospects are not
to be added. However, in my opinion when there is specific
evidence of consistent increase in the income, the dependents
would be entitled to an addition towards the future prospects as
per the scale provided in Sarla Verma & Ors.(supra). The
Claims Tribunal, therefore, rightly added the future prospects in
this case.
6. Award of compensation of `60,000/- towards loss of love and
affection was slightly on the higher side. Loss of love and
affection can never be measured in terms of money. Thus,
uniformity has to be adopted by the Courts while granting non-
pecuniary damages. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma v.
Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta
v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627
granted only ` 25,000/- (in total to all the claimants) under the
head of loss of love and affection. Thus, I would reduce the
compensation under this head to ` 25,000/- only.
7. In an award of `18,21,520/-, a variation of `30,000/- to `
35,000/- does not impel me to interfere with the award. In my
view, the compensation awarded is just and reasonable.
8. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal
shall be disbursed/held in Fixed Deposit in terms of the
impugned judgment.
9. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; it is accordingly dismissed.
10. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the Appellant
Insurance Company.
11. No costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 09, 2012
pst
