Delhi High Court
Suman Kumari & Ors vs Dharambir Singh & Anr on 3 April, 2014
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 3rd April, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 857/2013
SUMAN KUMARI & ORS ..... Appellants
Represented by: Mr. Manu Shahalia, Adv.
versus
DHARAMBIR SINGH & ANR ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Amit Aggarwal and
Mr. Satyajit Sarna, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CM. No. 14921/2013
1. Vide the instant application, the applicant is seeking condonation of
delay of 183 days in filing the above noted appeal.
2. Notice in the instant application was issued vide order dated
23.09.2013. However, till date no reply thereto has been filed by the
respondents.
3. It is stated in the instant application that impugned award was passed
on 11.12.2012 and the appellant no. 1, widow of the deceased was in
extreme depression and psychological help was required to bring her back to
her senses. Thus delay has been caused to file the present appeal. Same
was not deliberate.
4. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 submits that
delay has not been properly explained. Moreover the accident had taken
place on 18.08.2011 and the award was passed by the Ld. Tribunal on
11.12.2012. Thus the instant application has no merit.
5. The appeal filed by the appellant is under the welfare legislation and
has been filed for enhancement of the compensation amount.
6. The deceased died at the age of 35 years leaving behind young
widow, a son, a daughter and parents.
7. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,
instant application is allowed.
+ MAC.APP. 857/2013
1. With the consent of the parties, instant appeal is taken up for final
disposal.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award
dated 11.12.2012, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for an
amount of Rs.11,83,925/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the Claim Petition till realization of the amount.
3. The present appeal has been filed for enhancement of the
compensation amount noted above.
4. Mr. Manu Shahalia, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submits that deceased was working as a Manager and was earning
Rs.10,200/- per month. Since the appellants failed to establish the income of
the deceased, therefore, the Ld. Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of
the deceased as Rs.6,084/- as per the minimum wages applicable to an
unskilled worker.
5. Mr. Shahalia, further submits that keeping the age of the deceased into
view, ld. Tribunal ought to have added 50% in his actual income towards
future prospects, however, added only 30% to the same.
6. Ld. Counsel further submits that deceased died at the age of 35 years,
leaving behind, young widow, son, daughter and parents. The widow lost
the association of her husband, children lost the love and affection and
guidance of their father and the parents lost the love and affection and
support of their son. Despite, the Ld. Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/-
towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium
and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, which are on the lower side.
However, no amount has been granted towards loss of estate.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent no. 2 / Corporation submits that the appellants /
claimants failed to prove the avocation and income of the deceased.
Therefore, Ld. Tribunal has rightly added 30% in his actual income towards
future prospects.
8. Ld. Counsel further submits that on non-pecuniary damages, keeping
the facts and circumstances of the case and the dependents into view, Ld.
Tribunal has sufficiently granted compensation towards these heads.
9. I have heard ld. Counsels for the parties.
10. As far as the issue of future prospects is concerned this issue has been
dealt by this court in the case bearing MACA No.846/2011 titled as ICICI
Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors., decided on
30.09.2013 while relying upon the dictum of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir
Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563.
11. Admittedly, deceased was 35 years of age on the date of accident.
Therefore, keeping in view the age of the deceased on the date of accident, I
add 50% in his actual income towards future prospects.
12. As far as the issue of non-pecuniary losses are concerned, the
deceased died at the age of 35 years, leaving behind five dependents, i.e.,
young widow, son, daughter and parents. The widow wife lost the
association and enjoyment of life at her young age, children lost the love and
affection and guidance of their father and the parents lost the love and
affection and support of their son in their old age. Therefore, I award
Rs.1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium,
Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses.
13. Consequently, the compensation comes as under:
Sl. Heads of Compensation Compensation
No. Compensation granted by ld. granted by this
Tribunal Court
1. Loss of Rs.11,38,925/- Rs.13,14,144/-
dependency
2. Loss of love and Rs.25,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
affection
3. Loss of Rs.10,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
Consortium
Loss of Estate Nil Rs.10,000/-
4. For funeral charges Rs.10,000/- Rs.25,000/-
TOTAL Rs.11,83,925/- Rs.15,49,144/-
Resultantly, the total compensation is assessed as Rs.15,49,144/-
14. Accordingly, compensation amount is enhanced to Rs.3,65,219/-
(Rs.15,49,144 - Rs.11,83,925).
15. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
16. The respondent / Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation amount with the Registrar General of this Court within a
period of six weeks from today, failing which, appellants / claimants shall
be entitled for penal interest @ 12% per annum on account of delayed
payment.
17. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release the amount in
favour of the appellants / claimants in terms of the impugned award dated
11.12.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal on taking necessary steps by
them.
18. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
SURESH KAIT, J.
APRIL 03, 2014
Jg/sb
