Mrs. Harmit Kaur vs Ajit Singh & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 3353 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      Date of decision: 18th May, 2012
+       FAO 531/2003

        MRS. HARMIT KAUR                         ..... Appellant
                     Through:         Mr. M.L.Mahajan, Advocate
                                      Mr. Gaurav Mahajan, Adv.
                       versus

        AJIT SINGH & ORS.                         ..... Respondents
                       Through:       Ms. Madhu Tewatia Adv. with
                                      Ms. Sidhi Arora, Adv. for State
                                      of Punjab.
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                                JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of ` 7,75,160/-

awarded for the death of Mandip Singh, who died in a motor accident which occurred on 04.11.1995.

2. The deceased Mandip Singh was working as an Engineer with 'Simplicity Project' on a salary of `3510/- per month. The Salary Certificate was proved as Ex.PW-9/1. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) made addition towards the future prospects to award a compensation towards the loss of dependency as `7,58,160/-. The overall compensation was awarded as `7,75,160/-.

3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the deceased was a young person, aged about 25 years. His salary would have increased manifold and thus, increase towards future prospects should have been granted 100% instead of 50%.

4. It is urged that since deceased Mandip Singh left behind only his young widow, who was a partial paralytic, no deduction should have been made towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased.

5. By a separate order passed today in an Appeal FAO 533/2003 filed by Mrs. Harmit Kaur, the compensation for the injuries suffered by her has been enhanced.

6. It is true that the Appellant Harmit Kaur suffered very serious injuries. Normally, when the deceased leaves behind just one dependent, there should have been deduction of 50% of the income towards the personal and living expenses.

7. Considering that the Appellant (Harmit Kaur) was paraplegic on the left side, the deduction of one-third towards the personal and living expenses was reasonable.

8. The Claims Tribunal did not make any deduction towards liability of income tax, though it was minimal on a salary of `3510/- per month in the year 1995. The Claims Tribunal added 50% towards future prospects (in consonance with Sarla Verma

(Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121) and awarded `7,000/- towards funeral expenses and `10,000/- towards loss of consortium.

9. The compensation of `7,75,160/- is just and reasonable and does not call for any interference.

10. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed and the impugned award is confirmed.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MAY 18, 2012 vk