Delhi High Court
Smt. Shimlesh Devi & Ors. vs Sh. Sukhbir Singh & Ors. on 2 November, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 2nd November, 2012
+ MAC APP.868/2012
SMT. SHIMLESH DEVI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Adv.
Versus
SH. SUKHBIR SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, 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 `6,18,503/- awarded
in favour of the Appellant for the death of Samunder Pal who died in a
motor vehicle accident which occurred on 29.01.2008.
2. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was proved that the
deceased was working as a Conductor on contract basis with the Delhi
Transport Corporation (DTC) and was getting a salary of `4895/- per
month. The Claims Tribunal found that there were five dependents,
therefore, it proceeded to deduct one-fourth of the deceased's income
towards his personal and living expenses and applied the multiplier of 13,
as the deceased was aged 46 years, to compute the loss of dependency.
3. The only ground of challenge raised by the Appellants is that even in the
absence of any evidence with regard to future prospects, the Appellants
were entitled to an addition of 30% on account of inflation on the basis of
the report of the Supreme Court in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance
Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559.
4. 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 victim's income in case of self employed persons and persons
having fixed income.
5. In view of the above, the Appellants are entitled to an increase of 30% in
the income to compute the loss of dependency.
6. The loss of dependency thus comes to ` 7,39,053/- (4859/- + 30% x 12 x
3/4 x 13) as against ` 5,68,503/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
7. Consequently, there is an enhancement of `1,70,550/- in the overall
compensation awarded which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment.
8. The enhanced compensation shall enure for the benefit of the First
Appellant, the deceased's widow.
9. The enhanced compensation shall be deposited with the Claims Tribunal
by Respondent No.3 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited
within six weeks.
10. The Appellants shall make up the deficiency of `250/- in the Court fees
within four weeks.
11. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
12. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 02, 2012
vk
