Delhi High Court
Rajpal & Ors. vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 17 September, 2013
Author: Suresh Kait
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:17th September, 2013
+ MAC.APP. 405/2013
RAJPAL & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Gurmeet Singh Hans and
Mr.Gurvinder Singh, Advocates.
Versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.K.L. Nandwani, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. This cross-appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimants
seeking enhancement of the compensation amount granted by the learned
Tribunal vide impugned award dated 26.07.2011 on the ground that the
learned Tribunal has failed to add future prospects while awarding
compensation.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants has
submitted that at the time of the accident, the deceased was 29 years of age
and in view of the recent judgment of the Full Bench of the Supreme Court
in the case of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE
563, the appellants/claimants are entitled for 50% towards future prospects.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent/Insurance Company while relying upon the case of Union of
India & Ors. Vs. S.K. 2011 4 SCC 589, and Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs.
Madan Mohan & Anr. delivered in Civil Appeal No. 4646 of 2009 on
02.04.2013 has submitted that in view of the above judgments since the
deceased was not in permanent job, therefore, the appellants/claimants are
not entitled for any compensation on account of future prospects.
4. The admitted fact is that every salary/income gets increase due to the
inflation. Every person after sometime earns more than what he was earning
earlier, therefore, in my considered opinion, in every case whether a person
is in a Government job or in a private job, his income keeps on escalating. It
is immaterial whether he/she is in permanent job or temporary. Earlier
majority of the employment was in public sector but in the changed scenario,
majority of the people finds employment in private sector. Nowadays,
people are very frequently changing their employment. That does not mean
they do not have permanent employment.
5. Therefore, for granting future prospects, if it is taken into
consideration that person working in the private organizations are not
entitled for the same, being not in permanent job, then claimants in such
cases are not entitled for the increase towards his salary/income. Hence,
recently keeping all these facts into view, the Full Bench of the Supreme
Court has decided the case of Rajesh and others (supra) as under:-
"11. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi's case (supra)
actually intended to follow the principle in the case of
salaried 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."
6. The deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of accident.
Therefore, keeping in view the dictum of above noted case, the
appellants/claimants are entitled for 50% towards future prospects.
7. I order accordingly.
8. Consequently, the compensation towards loss of dependency comes to
Rs.13,15,392/- (Rs.6448/- X 12 X 17).
9. Resultantly, the enhanced compensation amount comes to
Rs.4,38,192/-(Rs.13,15,392/- - Rs.8,77,200/-).
10. Claimants/appellants are entitled for the enhanced compensation
amount with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition till realization, except for the period from 01.11.2010 to 06.07.2011.
11. The respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation amount with upto date interest, except for the period
mentioned above, with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of
four weeks from today, failing which, appellants/claimants shall be entitled
for penal interest @ 12% per annum on account of delayed payment.
12. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release the amount in
favour of the appellants/claimants as per the ratio of the award dated
26.07.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal on taking necessary steps by
them.
13. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
SURESH KAIT, J.
SEPTEMBER 17, 2013
sb/RS
