Delhi High Court
Smt. Jagwanti vs Bhoop Singh on 16 January, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~R4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 16th January, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 888-89/2005
SMT. JAGWANTI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv.
Versus
BHOOP SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Gaur, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated
01.09.2005, whereby ld. Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of
Rs.3,90,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till realization of the amount.
2. Vide the present appeal, appellant is seeking enhancement of the
compensation amount noted above.
3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that on
the date of accident, the deceased was 22 years of age. He was a bachelor
and left behind parents. He was working with Net Based Solutions, Rohtak
Road, Delhi and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month from his employer,
which is proved by the salary certificate Ex.PW1/1. Simultaneously, he
was pursuing Graduation and was in B.A. (2nd Year).
4. Further submitted that PW1, Inder Singh Dahiya has deposed that
deceased was working with the aforesaid establishment and was drawing a
salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. It is also on record that deceased was
holding a Diploma in Web Designing and had a good future in the present
era of computers.
5. Ld. Counsel submitted that ld. Tribunal has failed to add future
prospects while calculating the compensation. Father of the deceased stated
that his son was employed four-five years prior to the accident in question.
6. Ld. Counsel further submitted that ld. Tribunal has granted
Rs.30,000/- in total towards non-pecuniary damaged, which is on a very
lower side. At the time of accident, the deceased was 22 years of age and
was a bachelor. He was a diploma holder in web designing and pursuing
graduation. He had a good future. Therefore, ld. Tribunal ought to have
granted more amount towards non-pecuniary benefits.
7. On the other hand, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
No.3 / Insurance Company submitted that deceased was not in a permanent
job. Moreover, neither any witness has been examined nor any proof has
been filed to prove the fact that he will get the promotion or increase in the
salary during the employment with the said establishment.
8. Ld. Counsel further submitted that for considering the aspect of future
prospects, one has to establish that there were promotional avenues, increase
in the income and that the employment was permanent in nature.
9. To strengthen his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon the
cases of Bijoy Kumar Dagar v. Bidyadhar Dutta and Ors. AIR 2006 SCC
1255 and Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 121, which has
been further affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and
Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013)9SCC65.
10. As regards the non-pecuniary benefits, ld. Counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent No.3 / Insurance Company submitted that towards
loss of love and affection and expenses on last rites, ld. Tribunal has granted
Rs.30,000/-, which is fair and just compensation. He submitted that
accident took place in the year 2004 and we have entered in the year 2014,
thus, ten years have already been passed and that the value of money was
high at that time as compared to recent time. Therefore, ld. Tribunal has
rightly granted Rs.30,000/- towards non-pecuniary heads.
11. I have heard ld. Counsels for the parties.
12. Admittedly, PW1, Sh. Inder Singh Dahiya has stated that deceased
was working with Net Based Solutions, Rohtak Road, Delhi and was earning
Rs.4,000/- per month. He proved the salary certificate as Ex.PW1/1. At the
time of the accident, deceased was aged 22 years. He was employed four-
five years prior to the accident. He was a diploma holder in web designing
and at the same time pursuing Graduation and was in B.A. (2 nd Year).
Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that he had a good future in life.
It has also to be borne in mind that the minimum wages are revised in just
six months not only to meet the inflation but also to improve the standard of
living of the lowest paid workers and to give them benefit of growth in GDP.
Therefore, keeping in view the qualification and age of the deceased, he
would certainly get a good salary in future.
13. Recently, in the case of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors.
2013 (6) SCALE 563, the Full Bench of the Supreme Court has held that the
claimants are entitled for future prospects keeping in view the age of the
deceased. Following the dictum in Rajesh (Supra) and the age of the
deceased, i.e., 22 years at the time of the accident, I also add 50% towards
future prospects.
14. I find force in the submission of the counsel for the respondent that
the tribunals and courts should award just, fair and reasonable compensation
and not a ``bonanza'' to the dependents or legal representatives of the victims
in motor vehicle accidents. However, the accident took place in 2004, i.e., a
decade ago, having regard to the higher rate of inflation which is a common
phenomenon in Indian economy and keeping in mind the facts and
circumstances of the case, I enhance compensation from Rs. 30,000/- to
Rs.60,000/- on account of non-pecuniary heads.
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.3,60,000/- Rs.7,20,000/-
dependency
2. Towards loss of Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 60,000/-
love and affection,
expenses on last
rites
TOTAL Rs.3,90,000/- Rs.7,80,000/-
16. Accordingly, the enhanced compensation amount comes to
Rs.3,90,000/-(Rs.7,80,000 - Rs.3,90,000).
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. 3/Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest 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 in terms of the award dated 01.09.2005
passed by the ld. Tribunal.
20. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
SURESH KAIT, J
JANUARY 16, 2014
Jg/sb/RS
