Delhi High Court
Sunanda Sharma & Ors. vs Reliable Services And Ors. on 28 November, 2014
$~R-33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 28.11.2014
+ MAC.APP. 981/2006
SUNANDA SHARMA & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through Mr.B.S.Mor, Advocate.
versus
RELIABLE SERVICES AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL)
1. By the present appeal the appellants seek enhancement of compensation
as per award dated 11.05.2006.
2. The brief facts which led to filing of the claim petition are that on
23.02.1998 the deceased Sh. Sunil Sharma along with other three persons
boarded a three-wheeler. They were going to Shreelekha Lodge, Daba Garden,
Vishakapatnam. Their three-wheeler was hit by a tripper said to be driven in a
rash and negligent manner. Sh.Sunil Sharma died in the accident.
3. As the issue involves the enhancement of compensation, I may look at
the compensation awarded. The Tribunal awarded compensation as follows:-
Loss of dependency Rs.3,94,800/-
(Rs.32,900-1/3rd = 21933 x 18)
Transportation of body & Funeral Rs.70,000/-
Expenses
Loss of consortium Rs.10,000/-
Loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.484800
(rounded off) Rs.4,85,000/-
4. A perusal of the award shows that the Tribunal based on the ITRs filed
for three years assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.32,900 p.a. 1/3rd was
deducted for expenditure on self. The age of the deceased was around 27 years
and hence loss of dependency was fixed at Rs.3,94,800/- using a multiplier of
18. The Tribunal noted that the deceased was a part time accountant and also
trading in Auto parts. He was also a LIC and UTI agent. He was survived by a
widow, a minor child and aged parents.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants relies upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9
SCC 54 to contend that he rests all his case on the said judgment of the
Supreme Court. He submits that the compensation as awarded by the Supreme
Court in the said judgment should be awarded to the appellant herein.
6. A perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh &
Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (supra) shows that while assessing loss of
dependency, the Supreme Court stated that after having assessed the income of
the deceased, the Tribunal should increase the same on account of future
prospects. Similar judgments to this effect are V. Mekala vs. M. Malathi &
Anr 2014 ACJ 1441 and Smt. Savita vs. Bindar Singh & Ors. (2014) 4 SCC
505.
7. In the light of the above and keeping in view the fact that the age of the
deceased was around 27 years on the date of his death the assessed income of
Rs. 32,900/- of the deceased should be increased for computing loss of
dependency by 50%. Accordingly, the loss of dependency would now come to
Rs.5,95,161/- (Rs.32,900/- + 50% - 1/3 x 18).
8. Coming to the non-pecuniary damages, the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000/- for loss of love and
affection. On the issue of loss of consortium the Supreme Court in the case of
Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. (supra) noted as follows:-
"20. .... 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."
9. However, I may note that the accident in the present case took place on
23.02.1998. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh
& Ors. (supra) was dealing with an accident that took place on 25.10.2007.
There is hence a gap of about 10 years in the period of the two accidents which
are under consideration. Keeping in view the price rise that would have taken
place in this period of 10 years, I enhance the award to Rs.50,000/- for loss of
consortium and Rs. 50,000/- for loss of love and affection.
10. The total compensation would now be payable as follows: -
Loss of dependency Rs.5,95,161/-
Transportation of body & Funeral Rs.70,000/-
Expenses
Loss of consortium Rs.50,000/-
Loss of love and affection Rs.50,000/-
Total Rs.7,65,161/-
(rounded off) Rs.7,65,000/-
11. Learned counsel also stresses that the pendente lite interest awarded by
the Tribunal @ 5.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realisation
is on the lower side. The pendente lite interest being the matter of discretion, I
do not deem necessary to interfere with it.
12. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company may deposit the additional
compensation amount as per this order along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from
the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit before the Registrar General
of this court within six weeks from today. Out of the additional compensation
amount 15% would be paid to appellant No.2, 15% to appellant No. 3, 15% to
appellant No. 4 and the balance 55% would be paid to appellant No.1. On
receipt of the additional compensation amount along with interest, the same
shall be released to appellants No. 1, 3 and 4 as per their share as stated above.
The share of appellant No.2 shall be kept in a fixed deposit with UCO Bank,
Delhi High Court Branch for a period of three years which may be released to
appellant No.2 with accumulated interest after three years.
13. The appeal stands disposed of.
JAYANT NATH, J
NOVEMBER 28, 2014
rb
