Delhi High Court
Smt Sunita Kumari & Anr. vs Sardar Dalbir Singh & Ors on 10 February, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 10th February, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 70/2012
SMT SUNITA KUMARI & ANR. ..... Appellants
Represented by: Mr. P.D. Gupta, Ms. Kusum
Dhalla and Mr. Atul Gupta, Advs.
versus
SARDAR DALBIR SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Ravi Shankar Garg, Adv. for
R2 and R4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Present appeal is directed against the impugned award dated
20.07.2011, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for a sum of
Rs.12,17,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition till realization of the amount.
2. Vide the present appeal, appellants are seeking enhancement of the
compensation amount as noted above.
3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued the
instant appeal on the ground that deceased died at the age of 30½ years. He
left behind his young widow wife, a minor child and a widow mother.
4. Ld. Counsel submitted that on non-pecuniary damages, Ld. Tribunal
granted Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
love and affection and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. However,
considering the age of deceased and the number of dependents, Ld. Tribunal
ought to have granted Rs.1,00,000/- each towards loss of consortium and
loss of love affection and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses.
5. To strengthen his arguments, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant has relied upon a case of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and
Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563.
6. Ld. Counsel for the appellants further argued that the date of birth of
the deceased was 23.12.1975 and he met with an accident on 30.05.2006.
Therefore on the date of accident, he was 30 years, 5 months and 8 days and
keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and
Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 121, Ld. Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 17.
However, Ld. Tribunal had erred in applying multiplier of 16.
7. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further argued that age of the deceased
was less than 31 years on the date of accident and was working as a Project
Manager with M/s. Channel Technology at NOIDA. He was earning
Rs.9,000/- as salary from the said Establishment. Therefore, keeping the
age of the deceased, Ld. Tribunal ought to have added 50% towards future
prospects while awarding the compensation, however failed to do so.
8. To strengthen his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the appellants relied
upon a case of Rajesh & Ors. (Supra) 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.
9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
nos. 2 & 4 submits that keeping the age of the deceased and number of
dependents into view, Ld. Tribunal has granted just compensation towards
non-pecuniary damages.
10. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the appellants failed to examine
any witness or to produce any material on record which proves that deceased
was on the permanent employment, therefore, Ld. Tribunal has not added
any amount towards future prospects while calculating the compensation in
view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra).
11. I heard Ld. Counsels for the parties.
12. As the issue of multiplier is concerned, Ld. Counsel for the
respondent nos. 2 & 4 does not dispute the proposition advanced by the Ld.
Counsel for the appellants and submits that keeping in view the age of the
deceased, Ld. Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 17 instead of 16
while calculating the compensation.
13. As far as the issue of compensation towards non-pecuniary damages is
concerned, the Tribunal and the Court has to see the facts and circumstances
of each case. Undisputedly, in the present case, deceased died at the young
age of 30-31 years. He left behind a young widow, a minor child and widow
mother. In such a situation, the widow lost the enjoyment of life and
association of her husband and the minor child lost the care and guidance of
his father, which requires for his betterment.
14. The Full Bench of the Apex Court has decided the issue of non-
pecuniary damages in the case of Rajesh & Ors. (Supra) and awarded
Rs.1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium
and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and this court has been
consistently relying upon the dictum of Rajesh & Ors. (Supra). Therefore,
keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I grant
Rs.1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium
and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses.
15. As far as the issue of future prospects is concerned, this issue has been
considered by this court in the case bearing MACA No.846/2011 titled as
'ICICI Lombard Channel Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors.,'
decided on 30.09.2013 while relying upon the dictum of Rajesh & Ors.
(Supra). In the present case, the age of the deceased was less than 31 years
of age and the appellants have proved the employment of the deceased with
Channel Technology at NOIDA which has been testified by the Director of
the said Company, who specifically deposed that the deceased was working
with them. Therefore, keeping the age of deceased on the date of accident, I
add 50% in his income towards future prospects on the income of the
deceased.
16. Consequently, the compensation amount comes as under:-
Sl. Heads of Compensation Compensation
No. compensation granted by the granted by this
Ld. Tribunal. court.
1. For Loss of Rs.11,52,000/- Rs.18,36,000/-
dependency (After adding 50% future
prospects and 17 multiplier)
2. For Loss of Rs.10,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
consortium
3. For Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
4. For Loss of love Rs.40,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
and affection
5. For funeral Rs.5,000/- Rs.25,000/-
expenses
Total Rs.12,17,000/- Rs.20,71,000/-
Resultantly, the enhanced compensation comes to Rs.8,54,000/-
(Rs.20,71,000 - Rs.12,17,000).
17. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the
amount.
18. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 & 4 is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation amount with the Registrar Channel 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.
19. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release the amount
proportionately in favour of the appellants / claimants in terms of the award
dated 20.07.2011 on taking necessary steps by them.
20. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 10, 2014
Jg
