Shubh Ram Sharma & Anr. vs Rohit Singh & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 4691 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                      Date of decision: 8th August, 2012
+        MAC. APP. 696/2011

         SHUBH RAM SHARMA & ANR.           ..... Appellant
                     Through: Mr. Manish Kumar Singh Adv.

                                            versus

         ROHIT SINGH & ORS.                               ...... Respondents
                       Through                Ms. Neerja Sachdeava, Adv. for R-3.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                                      JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of ` 4,27,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) for the death of Manoj Kumar in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 19.11.2005.

2. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver, owner and the Insurer, the finding on negligence has attained finality.

3. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellants:-

(i) The deceased was getting a salary of `4,000/- per month as is evident from the salary sheet Ex.PW-2/A. Incidentally, in the month of September, 2005 the deceased worked for just 23 days and was paid a salary of `3344/-. The Claims Tribunal ought to have accepted the deceased's salary as `4,000/- per month.

(ii) The deceased was getting overtime @ `2,000/- per month. The same should have been considered while awarding compensation.

4. I have perused the document Ex.PW-2/A. It is evident that the deceased's salary for full month was `4,000/-. If in a particular month the deceased was not able to perform his work for full working day, the compensation cannot be granted on that basis.

5. The Claims Tribunal made an addition of 50% on account of inflation on the basis of the judgment in Narinder Bishal & Anr. v. Rambir Singh & Ors., MAC APP. 1007-08/2006, decided by this Court on 20.02.2008.

6. This Court in Rakhi v. Satish Kumar & Ors. (MAC. APP. 390/2011) decided on 16.07.2012, referred to the reports of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176, Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179, Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidya Dhar Dutta & Ors, (2006) 3 SCC 242, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559 and held that as per Santosh Devi even in the absence of any evidence as to future prospects an increase of 30% in the income has to be provided when the victim was having fixed income or was a self employed person. Relevant portion of Santosh Devi is extracted hereunder:

"14.....In our view, it will be naive to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any

distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self- employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac. Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also

get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he / she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation."

7. Since there was no evidence of good future prospects and the deceased was getting a fixed salary of `4,000/- per month, the Appellants would be entitled to an addition of 30% only on account of inflation.

8. The loss of dependency comes to `4,05,600/- (4000/- + 30% x 1/2 x 12 x

13) as against `3,57,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

9. The overall compensation is thus enhanced by `48,600/- which shall carry interest @ 9% per annum as granted by the Claims Tribunal and shall be equally shared between the Appellants.

10. Respondent No.3 Oriental Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks.

11. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

12. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE AUGUST 08, 2012 vk