Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd. vs Smt Ganga Devi & Ors on 17 April, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 17th April, 2014
+ MAC.APP. No.169/2012
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Ms. Sakshi Gupta, Adv.
versus
SMT GANGA DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms. Santha Devi Raman and
Mr. V.K. Vashishth , Advs. for R1 to R7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award
dated 14.11.2011, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for an
amount of Rs.8,38,700/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the Claim Petition till realization of the amount.
2. Ms. Sakshi Gupta, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submits that the claimants have claimed that the deceased was working as a
driver on the date of accident and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month.
However, neither the avocation of the deceased nor his earning was proved
by the claimants. Therefore, Ld. Tribunal has assessed his monthly income
as Rs.3,700/- as per the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled person.
3. Ms. Sakshi further submits that the Ld. Tribunal added 50% in his
actual income towards future prospects contrary to the dictum of Sarla
Verma Vs. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 121, which has been further
affirmed by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Reshma
Kumari and Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65.
4. No other issue has been argued by the counsel for the appellant.
5. On the other hand, Ms. Santha Devi Raman, Ld. Counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents / claimants submits that the appellate court has
to see whether the just and fair compensation has been granted. She further
submits that towards non-pecuniary heads, ld. Tribunal has awarded
Rs.10,000/- each, i.e., towards loss of consortium and loss of estate and
Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses which are on the lower side. However,
no amount has been granted towards loss of love and affection.
6. I have heard ld. Counsels for the parties.
7. 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 wherein 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."
12. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it has been stated
that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be
no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of
those self-employed or on fixed wages, where there is
normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view
that it will only be just and equitable to provide an
addition of 15% in the case where the victim is between
the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the
compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There
shall normally be no addition thereafter."
8. Thus, keeping in view the age of deceased as 32 years and the view
taken by this court, I do not find any substance in the arguments of the
counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal on this issue fails.
9. As far as the issue of compensation granted towards non-pecuniary
heads are concerned, deceased died at the age of 32 years. He was a driver
by profession and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. He left behind young
widow, dependent daughter and three sons and parents. Accordingly, the
wife of the deceased lost the association of her husband and pleasure of life.
The dependents children lost the love and affection, care and guidance of
their father. Likewise, the parents lost the love and affection and support of
their son at their old age.
10. Therefore, keeping in view the facts noted above, I am of the
considered view that the Ld. Tribunal has not awarded compensation
adequately towards non-pecuniary damages. Therefore, I award
Rs.1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium
and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses.
11. 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.7,99,200/- Rs.7,99,200/-
dependency
2. Loss of love and Nil Rs.1,00,000/-
affection
3. Loss of Rs.10,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
Consortium
4. Expenses towards Rs.14,500/- Rs.14,500/-
medical treatment
5. Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
6. For funeral Rs.5,000/- Rs.25,000/-
charges
TOTAL Rs.8,38,700/- Rs.10,48,700/-
Resultantly, the total compensation is assessed as Rs.10,48,700/-.
12. Accordingly, compensation amount is enhanced to Rs.2,10,000/-
(Rs.10,48,700 - Rs.8,38,700).
13. 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.
14. The Appellant / Insurance Company 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, respondents /
claimants shall be entitled for penal interest @ 12% per annum on account
of delayed payment.
15. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release the amount in
favour of the respondents / claimants proportionately in terms of the
impugned award dated 14.11.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal on taking
necessary steps by them.
16. The statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant.
17. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.
SURESH KAIT, J
APRIL 17, 2014
jg
