Smt. Shaheen Parveen & Anr. vs Sh. Kamlesh Kumar & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 7205 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of decision: 17th December, 2012
+        MAC.APP. 769-770/2005

         SMT. SHAHEEN PARVEEN & ANR.                       ..... Appellants
                      Through: Mr. Adv.

                         versus

         SH. KAMLESH KUMAR & ORS.                 ..... Respondents
                      Through: Ms. Shivali Bansal, Adv.
         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                                  JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL._____/2012 (to be numbered)

1. This Application is for deletion of name of Appellant No.2. The Appellant No.2 Firazuddin has expired on 18.06.2012. A Death Certificate issued by Sub Registrar, East Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi has been placed on record.

2. In this view of, name of Appellant No.2 is deleted from the array of parties. Amended memo of parties may be filed within seven days.

3. The Application stands disposed of.

MAC.APP. 769-770/2005

4. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `2,16,344/- awarded for the death of Mohd. Alam in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 20.02.2002.

5. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver, owner or the Insurance Company; the finding on negligence reached by the Claims Tribunal has attained finality.

6. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that the deceased Mohd. Alam was dealing in manufacturing leather belts and was earning `5,000/- per month from the business. The Appellants failed to adduce any evidence in support of this Claim. The Claims Tribunal, therefore, took the minimum wages of a semi-skilled worker, that is, `2833.40/- per month. It further deducted 2/3 of the deceased's income towards his personal and living expenses on the ground that in due course the deceased who was a bachelor was to raise his own family. It applied the multiplier of 16 to compute the loss of dependency.

7. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the deduction in case of a bachelor, even if he had no responsibility of younger siblings has to be only 50%. Reliance is placed on Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.

8. It is further contended that an addition of 30% should have been made towards inflation. Reliance is placed on Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559.

9. The Appeal must succeed on both the grounds.

10. In Sarla Verma it was laid down that usually in case of a bachelor, deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 50%.

11. 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 even in the absence of any evidence with regard to future prospects Santosh Devi provides for an increase of 30% towards inflation in the victims income in case of self employed and persons having fixed income. 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."

12. Thus, there would be an addition of 30% in the deceased's income to compute the loss of dependency.

13. The loss of dependency thus comes to `3,53,558/- (2833/- + 30% x 1/2 x 12 x 16).

14. The Appellant would be further entitled to a sum of `25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and `10,000/- each towards loss to estate and funeral expenses.

15. The overall compensation thus, comes to `3,98,558/- as against `2,16,344/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

16. The enhanced compensation off `1,82,214/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment as awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

17. The enhanced compensation along with interest shall be deposited with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks.

18. The enhanced compensation shall enure for the benefit of the First Appellant.

19. Seventy five per cent of the enhanced compensation shall be held in fixed deposit for a period of five years. Rest shall be released on deposit. The First Appellant shall be entitled to quarterly interest on the fixed deposit.

20. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

21. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE DECEMBER 17, 2012 vk