Delhi High Court
Shipra Chatterjee & Ors. vs Jai Pal Singh And Ors. on 16 January, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 16th January, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 397/2010
SHIPRA CHATTERJEE & ORS. ..... Appellants
Represented by: Mr. Rajeev Khosla,
Advocate.
Versus
JAI PAL SINGH AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The instant appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancing the
impugned award dated 19.12.2009, whereby ld. Tribunal granted
compensation for an amount of Rs.4,66,630/- with interest @ 8% per
annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.
2. It is noted that while computing the compensation amount noted
above, inadvertently, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,66,630/-
instead of Rs.4,66,300/-.
3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that
undisputedly the deceased met with an accident on 01.03.1997 and
remained in COMA till his death, i.e., 18.12.1997. He died at the age of
37 years; left behind wife, minor daughter and old parents. The claimants
could not get documents of the current income of the deceased as they
could not talk to the deceased. Therefore, they had filed Income Tax
Returns of the deceased for the assessment year 1993-94 and 1994-95.
Ex.PW1/17, i.e., the balance sheet dated 10.08.1994 of the year 1994,
shows gross income of the deceased as Rs.70,200/-. However, net income
of the deceased was Rs.31,000/- and Rs.32,968/- respectively and the same
are Ex.PW1/13 to 19.
4. Ld. Counsel submitted that ld. Tribunal has considered only the net
income, whereas the deceased was earning Rs.70,200/- in the year 1994,
i.e., three years before the accident. He submitted that the deceased as an
Advocate had to spend some amount on the books and periodicals as is
mentioned in Ex.P1/17, the balance sheet dated 10.08.1994. Other
miscellaneous expenses such as printing and stationery, office expenses and
membership fee of the Bar were also incurred which are normally not the
expenses in other cases. However, while calculating the compensation, the
ld. Tribunal has considered only the net income of the deceased.
5. Ld. Counsel further submitted that profession of an Advocate is
permanent in nature. There is no retirement age in this profession and one
can continue till he/she remains physically fit. Therefore, the learned
Tribunal ought to have considered his profession as permanent and keeping
in mind the age of the deceased as 37 years at the time of accident, should
have granted 50% towards future prospects. However, ld. Tribunal failed
to do so.
6. He submitted that the issue of future prospects has been decided by
the Full Bench of the Apex Court in Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and
Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563, wherein it is held that even in a case of
minimum wages or others, the claimants are entitled for the future
prospects.
7. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further argued that deceased died at the
age of 37 years. He was an Advocate. Had he been alive, he would have
earned more and more as an Advocate. He left behind a young widow,
minor daughter and old parents, however, ld. Tribunal has granted
Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of
consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses.
8. Three years prior to the date of accident, the annual income of the
deceased was Rs.70,200/- and as per the Income Tax Return on the record
there was an increase in both the years. The income of a professional
normally does not remain the same and it is always on the increasing side.
Therefore, keeping all the facts into view, I am of the opinion that ld.
Tribunal ought to have assessed Rs.50,000/- per annum as income of the
deceased. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the
case and balance sheet on record, Rs.50,000/- is considered as the annual
income of the deceased on the date of accident.
Keeping in view the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh
(Supra) and age of the deceased as 37 years at the time of accident, I award
50% towards future prospects.
9. While granting the compensation on non-pecuniary damages,
Tribunal or the court has to see age of the person, his avocation and
dependents and other facts and circumstances. In the present case, I am of
the considered opinion that ld. Tribunal has granted compensation amount
towards non-pecuniary heads on a very lower side.
10. Recently in the case of Rajesh (Supra), the Apex Court has granted
Rs.1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss of
consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Following the
dictum of Rajesh (Supra), I am of the opinion that appellants are also
entitled for the same amount towards the non-pecuniary heads.
Accordingly, I grant Rs.1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and affection
and loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards the funeral expenses.
11. 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 dependency Rs.3,60,000/- Rs.7,50,000/-
2. Towards loss of love Rs.20,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
and affection
3. Towards loss of Rs.10,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
consortium
4. Compensation for Rs.46,300/- Rs.46,300/-
medical bills
5. Conveyance and Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/-
Special Diet
5. Towards funeral Rs.10,000/- Rs.25,000/-
expenses
TOTAL Rs.4,66,300/- Rs.10,41,300/-
(inadvertently, the tribunal
granted Rs.4,66,630/-)
12. Accordingly, the enhanced compensation comes to Rs.5,74,670/-
(Rs.10,41,300 - Rs.4,66,630).
13. The enhanced compensation amount also shall carry interest @ 8%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
14. 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.
15. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release the amount in
favour of the claimants, i.e., appellants and respondent nos. 3 & 4 in the
same proportion as awarded by the ld. Tribunal vide impugned award dated
19.12.2009.
16. In view of the above terms, the present appeal is allowed.
SURESH KAIT, J.
JANUARY 16, 2014
Jg/sb
