Savita & Ors. vs Sri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 582 Del

$~21
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                     Judgment delivered on: 30th January, 2014

+                          MAC. APP. No.57/2013

       SAVITA & ORS.                                   ..... Appellants
                           Represented by:   Mr. Anshuman Bal,
                                             Advocate.

                           Versus

       SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
       & ORS.                               ..... Respondents
                    Represented by: Mr.Sameer Nandwani,
                                    Advocate for Respondent
                                    No.1.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned award dated 04.10.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.10,56,280/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount.

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 has argued that Shri Sunil died in the accident on 16.06.2010. At that

time he was 38 years old and working as a driver with some private establishment. Since the appellants/claimants could not prove the employment of the deceased, while computing the loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.5,278/- applicable to an unskilled workman as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

4. He further submitted that the deceased was a matriculate on the date of accident. The said certificate is on record as Ex.PW3/2, despite, learned Tribunal has mistakenly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,278/- as noted above. Rather, on the date of the accident, i.e., 16.06.2010, minimum wages applicable to a matriculate in Delhi as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, was Rs.6,448/-. Therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the same while calculating the loss of dependency.

5. He also argued that on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 38 years and the learned Tribunal ought to have added 50% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, instead of 30%.

6. To support his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the case of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563 and submitted that keeping in mind the age of the deceased, i.e., 38 years the appellants/claimants are entitled for 50% increase in the income of the deceased towards future prospects.

7. Learned counsel further argued that the compensation granted on account of non-pecuniary damages is also on very lower side as the

learned Tribunal has granted only Rs.10,000/- each for loss of consortium and funeral expenses.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1/Insurance Company submitted that the deceased was 38 years old on the date of accident. The claimants could not prove even the avocation of the deceased, despite that the learned Tribunal has added 30% in his income towards future prospects in contrary to Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. DTC & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC121 and Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. delivered in Civil Appeal No. 4646 of 2009 on 02.04.2013.

9. On the issue of non-pecuniary damages, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/Insurance Company submitted that it depends upon fact and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the appellants/claimants had claimed that the deceased was working as a driver with some private establishment, but they failed to prove the same. The deceased has left behind a widow wife and three sons as dependants. Taking into consideration the above noted facts and the age of the deceased, i.e., 38 years, the learned Tribunal has granted Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- each for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.

10. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties.

11. Admittedly, while considering the income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has assessed monthly income as Rs.5,278/- per month in view of the minimum wages applicable in Delhi on the date of the

accident. However, while doing so, the learned Tribunal has completely ignored educational qualification Ex.PW3/2, i.e., the matriculation certificate of the deceased.

12. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased applicable to a matriculate person at the prevalent time as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Hence, keeping in mind the above facts, I take Rs.6,448/- per month, as income of the deceased was being prevalent in Delhi for a matriculate person at that time.

13. As regards the issue of future prospects is concerned, the Full Bench of the Supreme Court has dealt with the same in the case of Rajesh & Ors. (supra) which has been followed 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.

14. Therefore, keeping in view the settled position of law and that the deceased was aged 38 years at the time of the accident, I grant 50% of the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects.

15. So far as non-pecuniary benefits are concerned, the accident had taken place on 16.06.2010 and around four years have passed since then. The deceased left behind four dependants, i.e., widow and three minor sons. Due to untimely tragic death of the deceased in the accident, the appellants/claimants became the destitute and deprived of the care and affection causing irreparable loss to them.

16. 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 consortium to Rs.1,00,000/- and for funeral expenses to Rs.25,000/-

17. 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.9,26,280/-         Rs.11,60,640/-
          dependency
  2.      Loss of love and Rs.1,00,000/-           Rs.1,00,000/-
          affection
  3.      For          funeral Rs. 10,000/-        Rs. 25,000/-
          expenses
  4.      Loss to estate       Rs. 10,000/-        Rs. 10,000/-
  5.      Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/-          Rs.1,00,000/-
          TOTAL               Rs.10,56,280/-       Rs.13,95,640/-

18. Accordingly, the enhanced compensation amount comes to Rs.3,39,360/- (Rs.13,95,640 - Rs.10,56,280).

19. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

20. Accordingly, the respondent No.1/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.

21. On deposit, the Registrar General of this Court is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount in favour of respondents/claimants in the form of FDR for a period of two years as per the share ratio stipulated in the award dated 16.06.2010 passed by the Ld. Tribunal.

22. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.

SURESH KAIT, J.

JANUARY 30, 2014 Sb/RS