Delhi High Court
Ajeet Singh @ Jeet Singh vs National Insurance Co Ltd. & Ors. on 28 February, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 28th February, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 309/2012
AJEET SINGH @ JEET SINGH ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv.
Versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Manoj R. Sinha,
Advocate for Respondent
No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award
dated 20.04.2011 whereby Ld. Tribunal awarded compensation as under:
"NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
1. Towards special diet : Rs.10,000/-
2. Towards conveyance allowance : Rs.10,000/-
3. Towards mental pain, agony,
loss of amenities of life, happiness,
frustration towards disfigurement
and enjoyment of life : Rs.2,00,000/-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
1. Towards functional disability : Rs.2,15,804/-
2. Towards medical expenses : Rs.8673/-
3. Towards not being able to do his
Duties for 6 months : Rs.23,508/-
TOTAL : Rs.4,67,985/-"
2. Vide this appeal, appellant is seeking enhancement of the
compensation amount as noted above.
3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that at the
time of accident, appellant was 30 years of age and received 53% disability.
However, Ld. Tribunal has not added any amount on the income of the
appellant towards future prospects.
4. To strengthen his argument, ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied
upon a case of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE
563, wherein it is 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/Insurance Company submits that since the appellant could not
prove that he was in permanent employment, therefore, Ld. Tribunal has
rightly not added any amount towards future prospects and relied upon a
case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 12 1which has been
further affirmed by the Full Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Reshma
Kumari and Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65.
6. The issue of future prospects has been dealt by this court in the case
bearing MAC. APP. No.846/2011 titled as ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors. wherein while relying upon
the dictum of Rajesh & Ors. (Supra) it is held that the future prospects can
be granted up to 50%, keeping in view the age of the deceased.
7. Admittedly, in the present case, appellant was 30 years of age at the
time of accident. Therefore, I add 50% in his actual income towards future
prospects.
8. Consequently, the compensation amount comes as under:-
Sr. Heads Calculation Calculation
No. as per as per this
MACT Court
i. Towards functional Rs.2,15,804/- Rs.3,23,705/-
disability
ii. Towards not being able Rs.23,508/- Rs.23,508/-
to do his duties for six
months
iii. Towards medical Rs.8,673/- Rs.8,673/-
expenses
iv. Towards special diet Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
v. Towards conveyance Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
allowance
vi. Towards mental pain, Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
agony, loss of amenities
of life, happiness,
frustration towards
disfigurement and
enjoyment of life
TOTAL Rs.4,67,985/- Rs.5,75,886/-
Resultantly, the compensation is assessed as Rs.5,75,886/-.
9. Hence, an amount of Rs.1,07,901 is enhanced (Rs.5,75,886 -
Rs.4,67,985).
10. The enhanced compensation shall also carry interest @ 8% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
11. The respondent /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, appellant/claimant
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 appellant/claimant in terms of the impugned award dated
20.04.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal on taking necessary steps by him.
13. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
SURESH KAIT, J.
FEBRUARY 28, 2014/Jg/RS
