Delhi High Court
Saroj Khanijo & Ors. vs Rishika Berry & Ors. on 12 September, 2013
Author: Suresh Kait
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 12th September, 2013
+ MAC.APP. 1001/2011
SAROJ KHANIJO & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma, Adv.
versus
RISHIKA BERRY & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Suman Bagga, Adv. for R3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Instant appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the
compensation amount awarded by the ld. Tribunal vide impugned order
dated 19.07.2011.
2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that
while granting the compensation of Rs.13,10,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per
annum, ld. Tribunal has not granted future prospects as the deceased was 47
years of age on the date of accident.
3. Ld. Counsel has relied upon a case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir
Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563 wherein the Apex Court has held as
under:
"Since the Court in Santosh Devi's case (Supra) actually
intended to follow the principle in the case of salaries persons
as laid in Sarla Verma's case (Supra) and to make it applicable
also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is
clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not
30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other
words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed
wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there
must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the
deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say
that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if
any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the
age group of 40 to 50 years."
4. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent / insurance
company submits that future prospects can be granted only if the deceased is
in a permanent job as has been considered in a case of Sarla Verma v. DTC
and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 121, which has thereafter been affirmed by the Full
Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan
Mohan & Anr. delivered in Civil Appeal No. 4646 of 2009 on 02.04.2013.
5. I am conscious that recent judgment of Full Bench is Rajesh Kumar
v. Rajbir (Supra). Therefore, keeping in view the dictum of the Apex Court,
I grant 30% future prospects in view the age of the deceased as the deceased
was 47 years of age on the date of accident, i.e., 17.09.2008.
6. Accordingly, the compensation comes as under:
1. Income - Rs.1,20,000/- per annum
2. Future prospect (30%) - Rs. 36,000/-
3. 1/4th Personal expenses - Rs.39,000/-
4. Loss of dependency
(1,17,000 x 13) - Rs.15,21,000/-
5. Loss of Love and Affection - Rs. 1,00,000/-
6. Loss of Consortium - Rs.10,000/-
7. Loss of Estate - Rs. 5,000/-
8. Funeral Expenses - Rs.25,000/
Total Compensation - Rs.16,61,000/-
7. Thus the enhanced compensation comes to Rs.3,51,000/-, i.e.,
(Rs. 16,61,000 - Rs.13,10,000).
8. On the issue of increase of interest, keeping in view the date of
accident, i.e., 17.09.2008, I am of the considered opinion, that ld. Tribunal
has rightly granted interest @ 7.5%. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere
with.
9. Consequently, the enhanced amount of Rs. 3,51,000/- shall be
deposited with the Registrar General of this court within five weeks from
today.
10. Needless to state that the said amount shall also carry interest @ 7.5%
from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
11. On deposit, the Registrar General is further directed to release the
enhanced compensation in favour of the appellants on taking steps.
12. Instant appeal stands allowed in view of the above terms.
SURESH KAIT, J
SEPTEMBER 12, 2013
jg
