Delhi High Court
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs Sh. Kunj Vihari Shukla & Ors. on 28 January, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 28th January, 2014
+ MAC.APP.No. 210/2012
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. J.P.N.Shahi, Advocate.
Versus
SH. KUNJ VIHARI SHUKLA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Umesh Mishra, Advocate
for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr.R.S. Nirwal, Advocate for
Respondent No.3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned award dated
15.11.2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the
tune of Rs.4,14,466/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance
Company has argued the instant appeal only on the ground that on the date
of accident, the deceased was 24 years of age and the respondents/claimants
failed to prove his employment, however, the learned Tribunal has assessed
the salary of the deceased as Rs.3,934/- as per the Minimum Wages Act,
1948 applicable to an unskilled workman at the prevalent time. Learned
counsel submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in granting 50% of the
income of the deceased towards future prospect in contrary to the dictum of
the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC
121, which has been further affirmed by the Full Bench of the Apex Court in
the case of Reshma Kumari and Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9
SCC 65.
3. It is pertinent to note that thereafter the issue of future prospects has
been decided by the Full Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and
Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563, wherein the cases of
Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2012 6 SCC 421 and
Sarla Verma (supra) were also considered and 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.
4. This Court has also applied the aforenoted dictum of Rajesh & Ors.
(supra) 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.
5. Keeping in view the settled position of law, I do not find any merit in
the instant appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.
6. Consequently, the Registry of this Court is directed to release the
statutory amount in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company and the
balance compensation amount alongwith upto date interest accrued thereon
in favour of the respondents/claimants on taking necessary steps by them.
SURESH KAIT, J.
JANUARY 28, 2014
sb
