Delhi High Court
Malti @ Manti & Ors vs Abdur Rehman & Anr on 1 September, 2014
$~A-11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:01.09.2014
+ MAC.APP. 656/2013
MALTI @ MANTI & ORS ..... Appellants
Through Mr.F.K.Jha, Adv.
versus
ABDUR REHMAN & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. P.K. Seth, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal is filed by the claimants/appellants seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded as per Award dated 20.04.2013.
2. The brief facts are that Mahender Yadav was going on a cycle when
he was hit by a motorcycle at Soami Nagar, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi.
The injuries proved fatal.
3. The Tribunal concluded that the accident took place due to the rash
and negligent driving of the motorcycle which resulted in the death of
Mahender Yadav.
4. On compensation the Tribunal awarded the following compensation:-
"1)Loss of dependency : Rs.4,93,200/-
2) Loss of love and affection : Rs.25,000/-
3)Funeral Expenses : Rs.10,000/-
4)Loss of estate : Rs.10,000/-
5)Loss of consortium :Rs.10,000/-
:Rs.5,48,200/-
Less (Interim Award vide order :Rs.50,000/-
Dated 09.05.2012)
Total :Rs.4,98,200/-
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant
No.1 had deposed that the deceased was a matriculate and used to earn
Rs.13,000/- per month. He was 40 years of age at the time of the accident.
The Tribunal took into account the above facts and took the wages of a
semi-skilled person but calculated the loss of dependency based on the
schedule for minimum wages for a semi-skilled person which at the time of
accident was Rs.4,110/- per month. Learned counsel submits that however,
no enhancement in the assessed income on account of future prospects or
increase in cost of living was made. He submits that there should have been
an increase on this account.
6. Learned counsel secondly submits that loss of consortium has been
given as Rs.10,000/- only which is on an extremely lower side.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 Insurance
Company has opposed the contentions of the appellant. He submits that the
issue of future prospects is pending in the Supreme Court and has been
referred to a larger Bench. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 where it was held that a person
who had fixed wages or is self employed future prospects are not to be
awarded.
8. We may first look at the latest judgments of the Supreme Court on the
issue of future prospects. In case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors.
(2013) 9 SCC 54, the Supreme Court held that in the case of self employed
or those on fixed wages, when the victim is between 40-50 years an addition
of 30% should be made in the wages for the purpose of computing loss of
future earnings.
9. In the case of Smt.Savita vs. Bindar Singh & Ors., (2014) 4 SCC
505, the Supreme Court was of the view that in the case of self employed or
those engaged on fixed wages, 30% increase in income over period of time
would be appropriate. In the case of V.Mekala vs. M.Malathi & Anr., 2014
ACJ 1441, the Supreme Court in the case of a student who was studying in
Class XI aged 16 years had awarded 50% increase for future prospects. The
last two judgments were passed in 2014.
10. I can also take judicial notice of the fact that the notified minimum
wages for a semi-skilled person in 2002 was Rs.2833.4/- and in the year
2012 it was Rs.7748/-. There is a manifold increase in the notified minimum
wages in the last ten years.
11. Accordingly in my opinion, the Tribunal ought to have increased the
wages by 30% while assessing the loss of dependency.
12. Coming to the issue of loss of consortium, the Supreme Court in the
case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. (supra) has awarded loss of
consortium at Rs.1 lac. In the said judgment the Supreme Court clarified the
concept of loss of consortium as follows in para 20:-
"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."
13. The accident that was subject matter of the award in the case of
Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. (supra) took place on 05.10.2007
and in the present case the accident took place on 7.11.2009.
14. Keeping in view the above facts there is merit in the submission of
learned counsel for the appellant that the Award of Rs.10,000/- under the
head of loss of consortium is on the lower side. The said amount is increased
to Rs.1 lac.
15. The compensation now payable would be as under:-
"1)Loss of dependency : Rs.6,41,160/-
2) Loss of love and affection : Rs.25,000/-
3)Funeral Expenses : Rs.10,000/-
4)Loss of estate : Rs.10,000/-
5)Loss of consortium :Rs.1,00,000/-
Total :Rs.7,86,160/-
Less (Interim Award vide order :Rs.50,000/-
Dated 09.05.2012)
Total :Rs.7,36,160/-
16. Accordingly, the additional amount of compensation as per directions
above be deposited by the respondent No.2 Insurance Company within four
weeks from today along with accumulated interest @9% per annum with
effect from the date of treating the Accident Information Report as petition
(10.2.2012) till payment received in Court. This is the same rate at which
the Tribunal has awarded interest. The said amount may be released to the
claimants/appellants proportionately in the same proportion as directed by
the Tribunal.
17. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
JAYANT NATH, J
SEPTEMBER 01, 2014
n
