Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Krishna Devi & Ors. on 6 March, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 6th March, 2014
+ MAC.APP. No.372/2010
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Ms.Manmeet Sethi and Mr. Anupam
Yadav, Advocates.
Versus
KRISHNA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.J.K.Singh, Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 1 to 8.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award
dated 22.03.2010, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation
for a sum of Rs.8,67,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% 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 submits that the age of the deceased Shri Lallan Prashad was 52
years on the date of the accident, i.e., 02.11.2004. He was working as a
driver and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. While awarding the
compensation towards loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal has added
50% of the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects, which is
contrary to the cases of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 121
and Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan and Anr. 2013 (9) SCC 65.
3. Learned counsel further submits that there were six dependants upon
the deceased, i.e., widowed wife and five children. However, the learned
Tribunal has deducted one-fifth of the income of the deceased towards
personal expenses. Ld. Counsel further submits that the law is settled in the
case of Sarla Verma (supra) and if the number of dependents is 4 to 6, then
one-fourth of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards
personal expenses. In the present case, there were six dependants upon the
deceased, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted one-fourth
of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses.
4. Recently, in the case of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors.
2013 (6) SCALE 56, the Full Bench of the Apex Court has observed 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. The issue of future prospects has been dealt by this Court also in the
case being MAC. APP. No.846/2011 titled as ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors. decided on 30.09.2013 while
relying upon the case of Rajesh (Supra).
6. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 52 years on the date of accident,
however, the learned Tribunal has added 50% of the actual income of the
deceased towards future prospects.
7. As the issue of deduction of personal expenses is concerned,
considering that there were six dependants upon deceased Shri Lallan
Prashad, i.e., wife and five dependent children and other legal
representatives, namely, Smt.Rama Devi and Smt. Madhu, respondent Nos.
7 and 8 respectively were the married daughters of the deceased, the learned
Tribunal has deducted one-fifth from his earnings towards personal
expenses.
8. In my considered opinion, Ld. Tribunal has decided both the issues
discussed above contrary to the settled position of law.
9. Therefore, firstly, the learned Tribunal ought to have added 15%
towards future prospects and secondly, ought to have deducted one-fourth of
the income of the deceased towards personal expenses.
10. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents/claimants submits that this Court has power to grant just and
fair compensation if it is not granted by the Tribunal keeping in mind the
facts and circumstances of the case. Further submits though no cross-appeal
has been filed by the respondents/claimants, but the compensation granted
by the learned Tribunal of Rs.10,000/- each on account of loss of consortium
and funeral expenses is on a very lower side.
11. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 52 years, he left behind widow
and five children. Therefore, taking into consideration the age of the
deceased and the facts and circumstances of the case, justice would be met if
I enhance Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- for
funeral expenses.
12. 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.6,37,000/- Rs.4,57,470/-
2. Loss of love and Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
affection
3. Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 50,000/-
4. For funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 25,000/-
5. Loss to estate Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/-
TOTAL Rs.8,67,000/- Rs.7,42,470/-
Accordingly, the total compensation amount is assessed at
Rs.7,42,470/-
13. Resultantly, an amount of Rs.1,24,530/- is reduced (Rs.8,67,000/- -
Rs.7,42,470/-).
14. Accordingly, the Registry of this Court is directed to release the
statutory amount and the excess amount with proportionate interest accrued
thereon in favour of the appellant company and the remaining compensation
amount be released in favour of the respondents/claimants in terms of the
award dated 22.03.2010 on taking necessary steps by them.
15. Accordingly, the appeal is partially allowed.
SURESH KAIT, J.
MARCH 06, 2014
Sb/jg
