Delhi High Court
Smt. Rajni Devi & Ors. vs Sh. Dinesh Kumar Somani & Ors. on 24 February, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 24th February, 2014
+ MAC.APP. No.139/2012
SMT. RAJNI DEVI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Represented by: Mr.Vikash Sharma, Advocate.
Versus
SH. DINESH KUMAR SOMANI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms.Archana Gaur, Advocate for
Respondent No.2/Insurance
Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated
14.07.2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a
sum of Rs.20,68,259/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of the petition till the notice under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC was
given by the Insurance Company.
2. Vide the present appeal, the appellants/claimants are seeking
enhancement of the compensation amount as noted above.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants
argued that PW2, Sh.Bhogender Jha, official of the department where
deceased was working, has proved the salary slips of the deceased for the
months of June, 2010 and July, 2010 as Ex.PW2/7 and PW2/8 respectively,
wherein net salary of the deceased has been shown as Rs.15,798/-, which
includes conveyance allowance of Rs.3,195/-. He submitted that while
assessing the salary of the deceased, the learned Tribunal deducted the said
conveyance allowance and accordingly taken the salary of the deceased as
Rs.12,603/- per month.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred
in considering that as per Ex.PW2/7 and PW2/8, gross salary of the deceased
was Rs.15,798/-, rather it was his net salary after deducting a sum of Rs.702
towards PF subscription from the gross salary of Rs.16,500/-, as has been
shown in the salary slip. He submitted that while assessing the monthly
salary of the deceased, the learned Tribunal ought to have added aforesaid
sum of Rs.702/- which is part of the salary.
5. Learned counsel also submitted that though the claimants have proved
the employment and age of the deceased as he was 29 years old at the time
of the accident, despite that the learned Tribunal has not added 50% of the
actual income of the deceased towards future prospects.
6. 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.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent No.2/Insurance Company has fairly conceded that the deduction
of aforenoted sum of Rs.702/- towards PF subscription from the salary of the
deceased is incorrect and the same should have been added in the income of
the deceased.
8. So far as the issue of future prospects is concerned, learned counsel
for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company 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.
9. As regards the issue of salary is concerned, keeping in view the
submissions of both the counsels and material placed on record, monthly
salary of the deceased comes to be Rs.13,305/- (Rs.12,603/- + Rs.702/-).
10. 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 relying upon the dictum of Rajesh & Ors. (supra), this Court added
50% of the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects.
11. Therefore, keeping in view the settled position of law and that the
deceased was aged 29 years at the time of the accident, I grant 50% of the
actual income of the deceased towards future prospects.
12. In view of the above discussion, 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.19,28,259/- Rs.30,53,497.5
dependency
2. For funeral Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 25,000/-
expenses
3. Loss of love and Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
affection
4. Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/-
5. Loss to estate Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/-
TOTAL Rs.20,68,259/- Rs.31,93,497.5
Accordingly, the total compensation amount is assessed as
Rs.31,93,497.5.
13. Resultantly, the enhanced compensation amount comes to
Rs.11,25,238.5 (Rs.31,93,497.5 - Rs.20,68,259). The same is rounded off
to Rs.11,25,240/-.
14. 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.
15. 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 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 proportionally in terms of the award dated
14.07.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal.
17. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
SURESH KAIT, J.
FEBRUARY 24, 2014
sb
