Babita Devi & Ors. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1647 Del

$~5

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Date of decision:7th March, 2012
+        MAC. APP. No.13/2012

         BABITA DEVI & ORS.
                                                     ..... Appellants

                            Through:    Mr. Kundan          Kumar       Lal,
                                        Advocate

                       Versus

         NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
                                         ..... Respondents

                            Through:    Mr. Galib Kabir with
                                        Mr. Ranjan Pandey, Advocates
                                        for the Respondent.

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

                            JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellants seek enhancement of compensation of `11,87,000/- only on the ground that the future prospects have

not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

2. While dealing with this aspect, the Claims Tribunal held as under:

"16. As issue no.1 has been decided in favour of the petitioner they are entitled to compensation. As regards to the quantum of compensation PW had stated that the deceased was 38 years of age at the time of accident and he left behind the petitioners who are his legal heirs. He was working as a driver with M/s. R.S. Travels, 849, Shabad, Mohammadpur, Near IGI Airport, New Delhi and was drawing a salary of ` 8,200/- per month. Petitioners also examined the Manager Operation of the Proprietor of firm where the deceased was employed as PW3 who proved his salary certificate. She also stated that income of the deceased would have increased in the future.

17. As regards the future prospects it has been held in Sarla Verma Vs DTC 2009(6) SCC 121 wherever the deceased had a permanent job, actual salary (less tax) should be increased by 50% towards future prospects, to arrive at the monthly income. In the present case the deceased did not have a permanent job. Moreover, no concrete evidence was led regarding the rise in income due to future prospects thus no amount can be added towards future prospects. However, the testimony of the petitioner/PW1 and PW3 went unchallenged as regarding the salary of deceased. I accordingly hold that the deceased was earning ` 8,200/- per month at the time of accident."

3. I have perused the testimony of PW3 Subhash, Manager(Operations) of M/s. R.S. Travels. He testified that the deceased joined the company on 02.01.2007 and died in an accident on 22.08.2007. He was getting a salary of ` 8,200/- per month. It is evident that the deceased was in employment with M/s. R.S. Travels company for a period of six months.

PW3 is silent as to the future prospects. Thus, the Tribunal rightly declined to grant any future prospects.

4. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

5. The Appeal is devoid of any merit, it is accordingly dismissed.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MARCH 07, 2012 pst