Guddi Rawat & Anr. vs Liyakat & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 5830 Del

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                  Date of decision: 27th September, 2012
+       MAC. APP. 992/2012

        GUDDI RAWAT & ANR.                              .... Appellants
                       Through:          Mr.Manish Maini, Advocate
                versus

        LIYAKAT & ORS.                              .... Respondents
                     Through:            Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate
                                         for R-3

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

                               JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J.

1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `13,53,200/- awarded in favour of the Appellants for the death of Deepak @ Deepak Rawat, a bachelor aged about 25 years, who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 13th February, 2011.

2. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver/owner or the Respondent Insurance Company, the finding on negligence has attained finality.

3. The Claims Tribunal took into consideration the deceased's salary certificate Ex.PW3/2-4 and the appointment letter Ex.PW3/1 to come to the conclusion that the deceased was working with Suryansh Educational Research Training & Development Society as a Junior Accountant and was getting a

salary of `15,000/- per month including the conveyance of `2,000/- per month.

4. The Claims Tribunal deducted `2,000/- which was being paid to the deceased as conveyance allowance and added 30% towards inflation to compute the loss of dependency.

5. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants that they were entitled to an addition of 50% as deceased was a young boy of 25 years and had good future prospects.

6. I have perused the appointment letter Ex.PW3/1 placed on record. The deceased was offered a consolidated salary of `15,000/- per month. There was no evidence with regard to the deceased's future prospects. The Appellants were, therefore, entitled to only an increase of 30% towards inflation on the strength of Supreme Court's judgment in the case of 'Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors'., 2012 (4) SCALE 559.

7. The impugned judgment does not call for any interference.

8. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly dismissed.

9. Pending applications stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 27, 2012 v