Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Haseena Bano & Ors. on 18 September, 2013
Author: Suresh Kait
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 18th September, 2013
+ MAC.A. 93/2013
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Vijay Singh and
Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advs.
versus
HASEENA BANO & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award
dated 21.11.2012 passed by the ld. Tribunal, whereby, ld. Tribunal has
granted compensation for a sum of Rs.6,27,712/- with interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.
2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued the
present appeal on two grounds. Firstly, ld. Tribunal has erred in
granting 30% future prospects contrary to the dictum of Sarla Verma
v. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 121.
3. Ld. Counsel submits that the claimants could not prove the
salary of the deceased, therefore, ld. Tribunal has assessed the salary
of the deceased as Rs.3,934/- per month as per the minimum wages
for unskilled persons. It is established that the deceased was not in
permanent job. Therefore, claimants are not entitled for any increase
in income.
4. Secondly, the wife of the deceased was only dependent upon
him, therefore, ld. Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3 rd towards
personal expenses.
5. On the issue of future prospects, recently, the Apex Court in the
case of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE
563 has held 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. In view of the dictum of the Rajesh (Supra), I do not find any
error in granting 30% towards future prospects as the age of the
deceased was 44 years at the time of accident.
7. On the issue of dependency, ld. Tribunal has recorded that
respondent no. 1 Smt. Haseena Bano, is the wife of the deceased and
respondent nos. 2 & 3 are the daughters of the deceased. Both are
major and married daughters. However, the claimants have proved
that respondent no.3, i.e., Sonali, daughter of the deceased was
residing with the deceased along with her husband who was
unemployed and earning nothing. Therefore, she was dependent upon
the deceased. The dependency of the respondent no. 3 upon the
deceased has been corroborated by the Voter Identity Card, which
shows the same address as that of the deceased. Mere marriage does
not make the person independent. In our society, there are various
reasons of getting married. In some cases, even after marriage, he /
she remain un-employed as the present case is.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
considered opinion that respondent no. 3 was dependent upon the
deceased.
9. In view of above discussion, I do not find any discrepancy of
the award of the ld. Tribunal on the issue of deducting 1/3rd towards
personal expenses Tribunal.
10. Accordingly, instant appeal is dismissed with no order as to
costs.
11. Vide order dated 30.01.2013, execution of the impugned award
was stayed subject to deposit the 75% of the award amount with up-
to-date interest accrued thereon with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
Branch, New Delhi. Thereafter, vide order dated 15.04.2013, 50% of
the deposited award amount was directed to be released in favour of
the respondents / claimants.
12. In view of above, appellant is directed to deposit the
balance 25% award amount with proportionate interest with Registrar
General of this Court within five weeks from today.
13. On deposit, Registrar General shall release the same in favour
of the respondents / claimants in terms of the order dated 21.11.2012
passed by the ld. Tribunal.
14. Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Delhi High Court is also directed
to release the balance compensation amount in favour of the
respondents / claimants in terms of the award passed by the ld
Tribunal.
15. Statutory amount be also released in favour of the appellant.
SURESH KAIT, J
SEPTEMBER 18, 2013
jg
