Delhi High Court
Bhupender Kaur & Ors. vs Gurdarshan Singh & Ors on 17 September, 2014
$~A-10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:17th September, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 211/2007
BHUPENDER KAUR & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through Mr.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate.
versus
GURDARSHAN SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through Ms.Manjusha Wadhwa and Ms.Arpan
Wadhawan, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation by
the appellants No.1 to 4. The appellants are the dependents of Late
Sh.Amarjeet Singh Kakkar.
2. The brief facts are that the deceased Sh.Amarjeet Singh Kakkar
sustained fatal injuries in a motor accident on 28.04.2004. He left for Delhi
from Ludhiana in a Mahindra Scorpio. In District Ambala, respondent No.1
who was driving a bus suddenly and negligently applied brakes and as a
result of which the driver of the Mahindra Scorpio could not control the
vehicle and rammed into the back portion of the bus causing the death of the
deceased on the spot. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending
vehicle. Respondent No.3 is the Insurance Company.
3. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded that both the
MAC.APP. 211/2007 page 1 of 6
drivers i.e. of the bus and the Mahendra Scorpio in which the deceased was
travelling were guilty of composite negligence. However, as the liability was
joint and several and as the driver and the owner of Mahindra Scorpio were
not made parties, the Tribunal was of the view that that the non-
impleadment of the driver and the owner of the Mahindra Scorpio is not
fatal.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants points out that an
appeal filed by the Insurance Company being MAC. APP. NO. 1050/2006
was dismissed long back upholding this view of the Tribunal.
5. The Tribunal awarded the following compensation:-
a) Loss of Financial dependency Rs.7,87,500/-
(52,500 x 15)
b) Loss of consortium Rs.25,000/-
c) Loss of love and affection Rs.75,000/-
(25,000 x 3)
c) Funeral Expenses Rs.10,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.8,97,500/-
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the
computation of compensation is incorrect. He submits that the claimants had
placed on record IT Returns of the deceased for the assessment year 2002-
03 showing income as Rs.63,000/- p.a., for the assessment year 2003-04
showing income as Rs.68,650/- p.a. and for the assessment year 2004-05
showing income as Rs.1,48,000/- p.a. It is submitted that the Tribunal
erroneously did not accept this income as per IT Returns for the assessment
year 2004-05 (Ex.PW-1/6) on the ground that it was filed after the death of
the deceased and the Tribunal was of the view that it shows highly inflated
MAC.APP. 211/2007 page 2 of 6
earnings/income as compared to the previous years.
7. Based on the above, it is submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly
assessed the income at Rs.70,000/- per annum. It is secondly submitted that
the Tribunal did not enhance the income for future prospects. It is thirdly
submitted that very meagre amount has been awarded for loss of
consortium, funeral expenses and also for love and affection and nothing has
been awarded for loss of estate.
8. Coming to the first contention of the appellants, the only evidence led
by the claimants pertains to the evidence of appellant No.1/PW-1. The
Tribunal noted that though it is averred that the deceased was a partner of a
firm M/S. P & P Knits with his brother-in-law running a cloth
manufacturing unit but this proposition was not supported by any
documentary evidence. The Tribunal noted that PW-1 did not place on
record or prove partnership deed, accounts or profit & loss accounts and
balance sheet of the partnership concern. Based on the above, the Tribunal
was not able to accept the last IT Returns.
9. In my view there is no reason to interfere with the computation of
income as assessed by the Tribunal. It cannot be ignored that the IT Returns
for the assessment year 2004-05 was filed after the death of the deceased.
No explanation is given as to the sudden jump of income as compared to
previous years. Though the learned counsel has pointed out certain bank
statements on record and also certain documents that purport to be the
balance sheet, these are all photocopies. Further there is nothing to show that
these documents can be associated with a firm connected with the deceased.
Regarding documents which purport to be the balance sheet they appear to
MAC.APP. 211/2007 page 3 of 6
be incomplete. It is not clear whether they are part of the income tax record
or are part of some other documents. In the absence of any authentic proof
or explanation these documents, cannot be accepted. There is no justification
on record for the sudden jump in the income of deceased as reflected in the
last return filed after the death. Accordingly, there is no merit in the said
first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal has
rightly assessed the income at Rs.70,000/- per annum.
10. Now coming to the issue of future prospects, I can take judicial note
of the fact that minimum wages for a graduate in 2002 were Rs.3439.7/-
P.M. and in 2012 were Rs.9282/- P.M. It is obvious that the prescribed
minimum wages have more than doubled in ten years.
11. 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, the assessed income should be increased by 30% for those between
the age bracket of 40-50 for the purpose of computing loss of future
earnings.
12. 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.
13. Accordingly, keeping into account the judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors.(supra) and keeping
into account the age of the deceased on the date of the accident i.e. between
MAC.APP. 211/2007 page 4 of 6
40 to 44 years, the income is liable to be increased by 30% on account of
future prospects. Accordingly, loss of dependency hence comes to
Rs.9,55,500/-[(Rs.70,000/- + 30% -1/4th) x 14]. It may be noted that the
multiplier used in this calculation is 14 and not 15 as done by the Tribunal.
This change is there on account of 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.
14. Coming to loss of consortium, the Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium. The Supreme Court in the case of
Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (supra) regarding the non-
pecuniary heads of damages noted as follows:-
"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."
MAC.APP. 211/2007 page 5 of 6
15. I enhance the compensation on account of loss of consortium from
Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-.
16. Similarly on funeral expenses, the award of compensation of
Rs.10,000/- is too meagre. The same is increased to Rs.25,000/-. On loss of
estate, as no amount has been awarded, I award a sum of Rs.10,000/-
towards loss of estate. The total compensation now is as follows:-
a) Loss of Financial dependency Rs.9,55,500/-
b) Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/-
c) Loss of love and affection Rs.75,000/-
d) Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/-
e) Loss of estate Rs.10,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.11,65,500/-
17. The enhanced compensation amount along with interest @ 7.5% p.a.
from the date of the filing of petition till deposit in court be deposited by the
Insurance Company/respondent No.3 within six weeks from today before
the Registrar General of this court. On receipt of the said money, the
Registrar General shall release the payments to appellant No. 1. It is made
clear that as per the Award the mother of the deceased respondent No.4 was
to get Rs.75,000/-. The share of the mother who is said to be no longer alive
with interest, if any be given to appellant No.1, the widow of the deceased,
if it had not been received by the mother.
18. The appeal stands disposed of.
JAYANT NATH, J.
SEPTEMBER 17, 2014
rb
MAC.APP. 211/2007 page 6 of 6
