Delhi High Court
Rakhi Devi & Ors. vs Ashok Kumar & Ors. on 25 February, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 25th February, 2014
+ MAC.APP. No.684 /2013
RAKHI DEVI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Represented by: Mr.Navneet Goyal, Advocate.
Versus
ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Pankaj Kumar, Advocate for
Respondent No.3/Insurance
Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated
22.04.2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a
sum of Rs.12,08,152/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.
2. This appeal is filed for enhancement of the compensation amount as
noted above.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants has
argued that the accident had taken place on 28.12.2012. On the date of the
accident, the deceased was 25 years of age. He was working as a Helper and
earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimants could not prove the salary
certificate of the deceased, therefore, the learned Tribunal has considered the
salary of the deceased as Rs.8,008/- applicable to a non-matriculate as per
the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. However, the learned Tribunal has erred in
not adding any amount towards future prospect in the actual income of the
deceased.
4. To strengthen his arguments, the learned counsel has relied upon a
case of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563,
wherein the Full Bench of the Apex Court 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."
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.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent No.3/Insurance Company has submitted that since deceased was
not in permanent job, therefore, the learned Tribunal keeping in mind the
dictum of Sarla Verma & Ors.Vs. DTC & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC121, which
has been further affirmed by the Full Bench of the Apex Court in the case of
Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. delivered in Civil
Appeal No. 4646 of 2009 on 02.04.2013, has not added any amount in the
actual income of the deceased towards future prospects.
6. The issue of future prospects has been considered by this Court in the
case bearing MAC. APP. No.846/2011 titled as 'ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors.', decided on 30.09.2013,
wherein while relying upon the dictum of Rajesh & Ors. (supra), this
Court added 50% of the actual income of the deceased towards future
prospects.
7. Therefore, keeping in view the settled position of law and that the
deceased was aged 25 years at the time of the accident, I grant 50% of the
actual income of the deceased towards future prospects.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants further argued that the
learned Tribunal has granted very less amount towards non-pecuniary
benefits, such as Rs.25,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- for
loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses.
9. He further submitted that recently the Full Bench of the Apex Court in
Rajesh & Ors. (supra) has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- each for loss of love and
affection and loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses.
10. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants.
11. Therefore, keeping in mind the aforesaid dictum of Rajesh & Ors.
(supra), I enhance the compensation on account of loss of consortium from
Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-, for loss of love and affection from Rs.25,000/-
to Rs.1,00,000/- and for funeral expenses from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/-.
12. Consequently, the compensation amount comes as under:
Sl. Heads of Compensation Compensation
No. Compensation granted by ld. granted by this
Tribunal Court
1. Loss of Rs.11,53,152/- Rs.17,29,728/-
dependency
2. Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/-
3. Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
4. For funeral Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 25,000/-
expenses
5. Loss of love and Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
affection
TOTAL Rs.12,08,152/- Rs.19,64,728/-
Accordingly, the total compensation amount is assessed as
Rs.19,64,728/-.
13. Resultantly, the enhanced compensation amount comes to
Rs.7,56,576/- (Rs.19,64,728 - Rs.12,08,152).
14. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the
amount.
15. Accordingly, the respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the enhanced compensation amount with upto date interest accrued
thereon with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of five
weeks from today, failing which, appellants/claimants shall be entitled for
penal interest @ 12% per annum on account of delayed payment.
16. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release the same in
favour of the appellants/claimants proportionately in terms of the award
dated 22.04.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal.
17. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
SURESH KAIT, J.
FEBRUARY 25, 2014
sb
