Delhi High Court
Smt Archana Kapoor & Ors vs Jay Shri Sabhanani & Ors. on 5 March, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 5th March, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 173/2012
SMT ARCHANA KAPOOR & ORS ..... Appellants
Represented by: Mr. R.P. Sharma and Mr. Vaibhav
Mehra, Advs.
versus
JAY SHRI SABHANANI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Amit Gaur, Adv. for R3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award
dated 13.12.2011, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for an
amount of Rs.13,77,207/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the petition till realization of the amount.
2. Vide this appeal, the appellants are seeking enhancement of the
compensation amount as noted above.
3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that on the
date of accident, the deceased was 41 years of age; he was self-employed;
and was earning Rs.15,000 to Rs.25,000/- per month. Accordingly, keeping
in view the Income Tax Return on record, Ld. Tribunal has assessed the
income of the deceased as Rs.1,00,501/- per annum. However, Ld. Tribunal
has not added any amount in the actual income of the deceased towards
future prospects.
4. To strengthen his arguments on this issue, ld. Counsel has relied upon
a case of Rajesh and Ors.Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563,
wherein it is 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.
5. Ld. Counsel for the appellants further submits that on the heads of
non-pecuniary damages, ld. Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss
of consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, which are on a very
lower side. The deceased died in the accident leaving behind young wife, a
minor son and dependant father. The widow wife lost company of her
husband and pleasure of life. Minor son lost love, affection and guidance of
his father and the father of the deceased lost his support. Therefore, keeping
in view the facts of this case, the compensation on the aforementioned head
may be enhanced.
6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
/Insurance Company submits that claimants failed to prove that deceased
was in a permanent job. Therefore, while relying upon the dictum of 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. Vs.
Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65, Ld. Tribunal has not added any
amount in the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects.
7. As far as the issue of future prospects is concerned, this issue has been
dealt by this court in the case bearing MACA No.846/2011 titled as ICICI
Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors., while
relying upon the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh (Supra).
8. Admittedly, in the present case, the age of the deceased was 41 years.
Therefore, keeping in view the dictum of Rajesh (Supra) and the age of the
deceased at the time of accident, I add 30% in the actual income of the
deceased towards future prospects.
9. So far as the issue of non-pecuniary benefits are concerned, the
deceased left behind a young widow and a son as dependants. The wife has
lost the company of her husband and the son has lost the care and guidance
of his father. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the
case and the dictum of Rajesh (Supra), I award Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss
of consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses.
10. Consequently, the compensation amount comes as under:-
Sr. Heads Calculation as Calculation as
per MACT per this Court
No.
i. Loss of Rs.9,38,014/- Rs.12,19,414/-
dependency
ii. Compensation Rs.75,000/- Rs.75,000/-
for loss of love
and affection
iii. Compensation Rs.10,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
for loss of
consortium
iv. Compensation Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
for loss of estate
v. Compensation Rs.5,000/- Rs.25,000/-
towards funeral
expenses
vi. Compensation Rs.3,39,193/- Rs.3,39,193/-
towards medical
expenses
Total Rs.13,77,207/- Rs.17,68,607/-
Resultantly the compensation amount is assessed as Rs.17,68,607/-
11. Hence, the enhanced compensation comes to Rs.3,91,400/-
(Rs.17,68,607 - Rs.13,77,207/-).
12. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
13. Accordingly, the respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the enhanced compensation amount 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.
14. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release the amount
proportionately in favour of the appellants/claimants in terms of the
impugned award dated 13.12.2011 on taking necessary steps by them.
15. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 05, 2014
jg
