Smt Raghubir Singh & Anr. vs Sh Jagdish Chand & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 2245 Del

$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of decision: 5th May, 2014

+                          MAC.APP. 841/2013

      SMT RAGHUBIR SINGH & ANR.               ..... Appellant
                   Represented by: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate.

                           versus

      SH JAGDISH CHAND & ORS.                              .....Respondents
                    Represented by:            Ms.     Suman         Bagga,
                                               Advocate for R-3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 13.02.2013 whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for a sum of Rs.3,33,179/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation of the amount.

2. Vide the present appeal the appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation as noted above.

3. Mr. O.P. Mannie, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submits that the deceased died at the age of 26 years despite that learned Tribunal has wrongly added 30% instead of 50% in his income towards future prospects.

4. On this issue learned counsel has relied upon the case of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563 it is held as under: -

"The ratio of a decision of this court on a legal issue is a precedent. But an observation made by this court, mainly to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio-economic issue, as contrasted from a legal principle, though a precedent, can be, and in fact ought to be periodically revisited, as observed in Santosh Devi (Supra). We may therefore, revisit the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses. It may be noted that the sum of Rs.2,500/- to Rs.10,000/- in those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In Sarla Verma‟s case (supra), it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. In legal parlance, „consortium‟ is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our Courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English Courts have also recognized the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse‟s affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium.

We may also take judicial notice of the fact that the Tribunals have been quite frugal with regard to award of compensation under the head „Funeral Expenses‟. The „Price Index‟, it is a fact has gone up in that regard also. The head „Funeral Expenses‟ does not mean the fee paid in the crematorium or fee paid for the use of space in the cemetery. There are many other expenses in connection with funeral and, if the deceased is follower of any particular religion, there are several religious practices and conventions pursuant to death in a family. All those are quite expensive. Therefore, we are of the view that it will be just, fair and equitable, under the head of „Funeral Expenses‟, in the absence of evidence to the contrary for higher expenses to award at least an amount of Rs.25,000/-"

5. Mr. Mannie, learned counsel further argued that the learned Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier as 7 as per the age of the mother of the deceased whereas as per the settled law the multiplier should have been 17 keeping in view the age of the deceased as 26 years on the date of the accident.

6. On this issue learned counsel has relied upon the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali and Ors. v. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors. : (2012) 11 SCC 738 and the view taken by this Court in Mohd. Hasnain & Ors. Vs. Jagram Meena & Ors. bearing MAC. APP. No. 152/2014, decided on 24.03.2014.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased was 26 years old on the date of accident. He was a bachelor and survived by the parents. The parents lost love and affection of their son because of his death they could not see his future and lost his support. However, Ld. Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses which is on a very lower side.

8. On the other hand, Mrs. Suman Bagga, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 Insurance Company submits that the appellants failed to prove the permanent employment of the deceased, therefore, keeping in view the settled law the learned Tribunal has rightly added 30% in his income towards future prospects.

9. On the issue of multiplier Ms. Bagga submits that the age of the mother of the deceased was 62 years on the date of accident and in such eventuality learned Tribunal has rightly relied upon her age by applying the multiplier as 7.

10. On the issue of non-pecuniary losses, learned counsel submits that each and every case has different facts and circumstances. In the present case the deceased was claimed to be working with some private establishment and was earning just Rs.8,000/- per month. He left behind old parents.

11. Therefore, keeping in view the facts in this case the learned Tribunal has awarded substantial amount towards non-pecuniary damages.

12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

13. As far as the issue of future prospects is concerned, the deceased died at the age of 26 years. This issue has been dealt by this Court in case of MACA No.846/2011 titled as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors., decided on 30.09.2013 while relying upon Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563.

14. Thus, I add 50% on the income assessed towards future prospects.

15. The issue of multiplier has been dealt by this Court in case of Mohd. Hasnain & Ors. (supra).

Accordingly I apply multiplier of 17.

16. As far as the issue of non-pecuniary losses are concerned, admittedly the deceased died at the age of 26 years. He was earning Rs.8,000/- per month and was a great help to the old parents. Due to the accident the parents lost love and affection and could not see his future career.

17. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I award Rs.1,00,000/- for love and affection and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses

18. Thus, the compensation comes as under: -

  Sl.     Heads of                      Compensation       Compensation
  No.     Compensation                  granted by ld.     granted by this
                                        Tribunal           Court
  1.      Loss of dependency            Rs.2,88,178.8/-    Rs.8,55,144/-
  2.      Loss of Love and affection    Rs. 25,000/-       Rs.1,00,000/-
  3.      Funeral expense               Rs. 10,000/-       Rs. 25,000/-
  4.      Loss of estate                Rs. 10,000/-       Rs. 10,000/-
          TOTAL                         Rs.3,33,178.8 /-   Rs.9,90,144/-

19. Accordingly, the enhanced compensation amount comes to Rs.9,90,144/-.

20. An amount of Rs.6,56,965/- is enhanced.

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

22. Consequently, the respondent No.3/ Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount within 8 weeks from today failing which the appellant shall be entitled for interest @ 12% per annum for a delayed period.

23. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release 50% of the enhanced amount and the remaining 50% amount shall be invested in FDR proportionately in terms of award dated 13.02.2013 for a period of 3 years.

SURESH KAIT, J.

MAY 05, 2014 hs