Delhi High Court
Smt. Meena Devi & Ors. vs Ranjeet Paswan & Ors on 12 September, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 12th September, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 263/2010
SMT. MEENA DEVI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Ms.Manjeet Chawla & Ms. Sunanda Roy, Advs.
versus
RANJEET PASWAN & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellants wanted to move an application for additional evidence in order
to prove the Appellants' claim that the deceased was getting salary of `6,000/-
per month.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that they (the Appellants) are
unable to get any witness to prove the salary of the deceased. She, therefore,
does not want to move any application. It is submitted that the Appeal may be
heard on merits.
3. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `4,25,952/- awarded by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Claims Tribunal) in favour of the Appellants
for the death of Ganga Dhar Chaudhary who died in a motor vehicle accident
which occurred on 10.07.2007.
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants that even if the deceased
was not entitled to any addition towards the future prospects in the absence of
any evidence with regard to the same, yet they were entitled to an addition of
30% towards inflation on the basis of the judgment in the case of Santosh Devi
v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559.
5. On the other hand, Mr.Pankaj Seth, learned counsel for Respondent No.3
Insurance Company urges that the compensation awarded is just and
reasonable.
6. 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 as per Santosh Devi even in the absence of any evidence as to
future prospects an increase of 30% in the income has to be provided where the
victim had fixed income or was a self employed person. 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."
7. Applying Santosh Devi, loss of dependency comes to `4,95,237/- (3663/- +
30% x 2/3 x 12 x 13) as against the award of `3,80,952/-.
8. No other contentions have been raised.
9. The compensation stands enhanced by `1,14,285/- which shall carry interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of this Appeal till its payment.
10. Out of enhanced compensation 15% shall be payable to each Kumari Anita and
Smt. Bachchi Devi. Rest 70% shall enure for the benefit of Appellant No.1.
11. Eighty percent of the enhanced compensation awarded to Appellant No.1 shall
be held in fixed deposit for a period of two years, four years and six years in
equal proportion and rest shall be released on deposit.
12. The enhanced compensation awarded to Kumari Anita and Smt.Bachchi Devi
shall be held in fixed deposit for a period of two years. The Claimants shall be
entitled to interest on quarterly basis.
13. The Respondent No.3 Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced
amount along with interest with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks.
14. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
15. The pending Applications stand disposed of.
G.P. MITTAL, J
SEPTEMBER 12, 2012
v
