Delhi High Court
Babli vs Roop Lal & Anr. on 19 February, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 19th February, 2014
+ MAC.APP. No.505/2008
BABLI ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.Sunil Kumar Verma, Advocate.
Versus
ROOP LAL & ANR. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.A.K.Soni, Advocate for
Respondent No.2/Insurance
Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award
dated 17.05.2008, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation
for an amount of Rs.5,78,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.
2. Vide the present appeal, the appellants are seeking enhancement of
the compensation amount as noted above.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued that
the claimants have examined PW4 Shri Vinod Kumar from the employer of
the deceased before the learned Tribunal, who stated that deceased Kamal
Chopra was working as a Salesman with A Lamode and was earning
Rs.4,700/- plus commission to the tune of approximately Rs.1,000/- to
Rs.1,500/- depending upon the sales. He further stated that salary of
deceased Kamal Chopra would have increased in the next year by a sum of
Rs.500/-. He proved the salary certificate of the deceased as Ex.PW4/1.
Despite the above noted facts, the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the
monthly income of the deceased as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948
applicable to a matriculate.
4. Learned counsel further argued that on the date of the accident, the
age of the deceased was 26 years. Despite that, the learned Tribunal has not
added any income towards future prospects as per the settled law.
5. To strengthen his arguments, the learned counsel has relied upon the
case of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563,
wherein the Full Bench of the Apex Court has observed 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.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that the compensation granted by
the learned Tribunal on account of non-pecuniary damages was Rs.30,000/-
for loss of love and affection/loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- for funeral
expenses is also on a very lower side.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
No.2/ Insurance Company has submitted that the appellants/claimants have
failed to establish that the deceased was in a permanent job, therefore, the
learned Tribunal has rightly not added anything towards future prospects.
8. Learned counsel further submitted that the accident had taken place on
26.02.2004, therefore, keeping in view the rate of inflation, the
compensation granted by the learned Tribunal towards non-pecuniary
benefits is just and proper.
9. On perusal of the evidence, it is established that the salary certificate
Ex.PW4/1 did not mention the month during which Rs.4,700/- were paid to
the deceased as a salary and it also did not reflect the commission being paid
to him. In cross-examination, he specifically admitted that neither any
salary register nor attendance register nor even books of accounts were being
maintained in their office. He also failed to produce any document to show
that the deceased was working with them.
10. Since the claimants failed to prove the employment with the
establishment mentioned above, therefore, while calculating the
compensation towards loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal has assessed
the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,320/- applicable to a matriculate
at the relevant time as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Thus, I am of
the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly not considered
the salary as claimed by the appellants/claimants.
11. So far as the issue of future prospects is concerned, similar issue has
been dealt with 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 & Ors.
(supra).
12. Therefore, keeping in view the settled position of law and the age of
deceased, i.e., 26 years at the time of the accident, I grant 50% of the actual
income of the deceased towards future prospects.
13. In the present case, at the time of the accident, the deceased was 26
years of age. He left behind young widow, two minor children and aged
parents. However, respondent No.5, Shri Hansraj Chopra, i.e., father of the
deceased died during the pendency of the appeal. But on the date of the
accident there were five dependants. Due to the sudden demise of the
deceased in a road accident, the widow of the deceased has lost all
enjoyment of life, his company and the minor children have lost the
guidance, love, affection and care of their father. It has also affected their
socio-economic status as he was the only bread earner in the family and their
future hopes have been jeopardised.
14. Therefore, keeping into mind all the facts and circumstances of the
case and following the dictum of Rajesh & Ors. (supra), I enhance the
compensation on account of loss of love and affection to Rs.1,00,000/-, for
loss of consortium to Rs.1,00,000/- and for funeral expenses to Rs.25,000/-
15. Accordingly, 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.5,38,000/- Rs.8,06,780/-
dependency
2. Loss of love and Rs. 30,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
affection/ (Rs.1,00,000/- +
Rs.1,00,000/-)
loss of Consortium
3. For funeral Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 25,000/-
expenses
4. Loss to estate Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/-
TOTAL Rs.5,78,000/- Rs.10,36,760/-
Thus, the compensation is assessed as Rs.10,36,760/-.
16. Resultantly, the enhanced compensation amount comes to
Rs.4,58,760/-(Rs.10,36,760 - Rs.5,78,000).
17. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
18. Accordingly, the respondent No.2/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 six 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 in
favour of the appellants/claimants proportionately in terms of the award
dated 17.05.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal on taking necessary steps
by them.
20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
SURESH KAIT, J.
FEBRUARY 19, 2014
sb/jg
