Ram Katori & Ors vs D. Talukdar & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 5038 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                    Date of decision: 27th August, 2012
+        MAC.APP. 499/2004

         RAM KATORI & ORS.                                      ..... Appellants
                      Through:               Mr. S.C. Singhal, Adv.

                           versus


         D. TALUKDAR & ANR.                                    ..... Respondents
                      Through:               Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Adv.

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

                                      JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `2,60,000/- awarded in favour of the Appellants for the death of Mahesh Kumar who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 22.07.1994.

2. At the time of hearing of the Appeal, the following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:-

(i) The Appellant was granted compensation on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker. No addition in the deceased's income towards future prospects/inflation was made.

(ii) The deceased's age in the postmortem report was found to be 25 years. The Claims Tribunal erred in taking the deceased's age as 31 years.

(iii) The compensation awarded towards non-pecuniary heads is on the lower side.

3. On the other hand, it is urged by the learned counsel for the Respondents that the deceased was allegedly working as an ironman. The compensation awarded was just and reasonable.

4. In the absence of any evidence with regard to the future prospects, the Appellants are entitled to an increase of 30% towards the inflation on the basis of judgment of the Supreme Court in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559, relied on and discussed by this Court in Rakhi v. Satish Kumar & Ors. (MAC. APP. 390/2011) decided on 16.07.2012.

5. Thus, the Appellants were entitled to an increase in the deceased's income to the extent of 30% on account of inflation.

6. As far as age of the deceased is concerned, since the same was claimed to be 31 years in the Claim Petition and the deceased had two children aged 4 years and 3 years at the time of the accident. The age in the Postmortem Report is given only on approximation. When the Appellants themselves stated the age to be 31 years, it would be reasonable to hold the deceased's age to be the same.

7. The loss of dependency thus comes to `2,80,800/- (1500/- + 30% x 3/4 x 12 x 16).

8. Considering that this accident took place in the year 1994, the Appellants are awarded a sum of `15,000/- towards love and affection and `5,000/- each towards loss of consortium, loss to estate and funeral expenses.

9. In addition, the Appellants are entitled to a sum of `4,700/- towards the medical expenses spent on the deceased before he succumbed to the injuries, as was granted by the Claims Tribunal.

10. The overall compensation is thus enhanced from `2,60,000/- to `3,15,500/-.

11. The enhanced compensation of `55,500/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment.

12. The enhanced compensation shall enure for the benefit of First Appellant, the deceased's widow. Since this accident took place 18 years back, 50% of the enhanced compensation shall be held in fixed deposit for a period of two years. Rest shall be released on deposit.

13. Respondent No.2 (Union of India) is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi within six weeks.

14. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

15. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE AUGUST 27, 2012 vk