National Insurance Co Ltd vs Aradhana Singh & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 4695 Del

$~A-28
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                           Date of decision: 22.09.2014

+     MAC.APP. 862/2014 and CM No.15712-15713/2014

      NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD              ..... Appellant
                   Through Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate.

                         versus

      ARADHANA SINGH & ORS                              ..... Respondents
                  Through  None.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company seeking to impugn the award dated 30.07.2014. Brief facts are that on 13.04.2011, the deceased Shri Gyan Prakash Singh along with Sh. Gore Lal Pathak, was going for the purpose of the company's work on motorcycle. They were going from the company to Wire Materials Science Kachchi Sarak. At G.B. Nagar, U.P. a mini bus came at very fast and high speed said to be driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle with great force. The deceased received fatal injuries and died on the spot. Sh. Gore Lal Pathak received multiple injuries. Two claim petitions were filed and disposed of by a common Award.

2. The present appeal pertains to compensation awarded to the dependents of deceased Sh. Gyan Prakash Singh. The deceased was said to be aged 36 years. He was also said to be working as a security guard in a

security agency SIS Security Services and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The tribunal has taken minimum wages for a skilled worker (matriculate) prevalent on the date of accident in U.P. which was Rs.5,269/- (rounded off to Rs.5,270/-) per month. The tribunal has taken the educational qualifications based on the educational record led by PW1 wife of the deceased. She has placed on record the documents Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4 to show that her husband was educated upto intermediate. The tribunal took a multiplier of 16 based on the age of the deceased who was not yet 36 years old, 1/4th was deducted towards personal and living expenses. The assessed income was enhanced by 50% for future prospects and loss of dependency worked out at Rs.11,38,000/-. Total compensation of Rs. 13,08,000/- was awarded as follows:-

      "Loss of dependency                     :   Rs.11,38,000/-
       Loss of Love and affection             :   Rs.1,00,000/-
       Loss of Consortium                     :   Rs. 50,000/-
       Loss of Estate                         :   Rs. 10,000/-
       Funeral expenses                       :   Rs. 10,000/-
           Total                              :   Rs.13,08,000/-"

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has impugned the Award only on the ground that 50% future prospects have been awarded to the appellant. Hence, it is urged that the Award is erroneous on this count and that the calculation of loss of dependency is on higher side. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Yeramma & Ors. vs. G. Krishnamurthy & Anr., 2014 (10) SCALE 213.

4. In my opinion, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the

case of Smt. Savita vs. Bindar Singh & Ors., (2014) 4 SCC 505 in paragraph 5 while discussing the case of Sarla Verma vs. DTC (supra) noted the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd. and Ors., (2012) 6 SCC 421 as follows:-

"6. After considering the decisions of this Court in Santosh Devi (supra) as well as Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra), we are of the opinion that it is the duty of the Court to fix a just compensation. At the time of fixing such compensation, the court should not succumb to the niceties or technicalities to grant just compensation in favour of the claimant. It is the duty of the court to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured or the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. Therefore, it will be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to award just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation judging the situation prevailing at that point of time with reference to the settled principles on assessment of damages. In doing so, the Tribunal can also ignore the claim made by the claimant in the application for compensation with the prime object to assess the award based on the principle that the award should be just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation.

7. In the instant case, it appears that the Tribunal and the High Court have also failed to consider the fact- situation of this case, without taking any pragmatic view and further without considering the price-index prevailing at the moment, assessed the compensation ignoring the principle laid down by this Court in the recent decisions (see: Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra) as also Santosh Devi (supra)) and without revisiting the present situation, came to the conclusion and

awarded the total compensation for a sum of ` 4,28,000/-."

5. In the above case also, as there was absence of any proof of income of the deceased, the Tribunal had taken the income as `3,000/- per month. The Supreme Court granted 30% increase for future prospects.

6. The Supreme Court in the judgment of V. Mekala vs. M. Malathi and Anr., 2014 ACJ 1441 which was delivered on 25.4.2014 in paragraph 19 held as follows:-

"19. Therefore, In the light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid case, it would be just and proper for this Court, and keeping in mind her past results we take `10,000/- as her monthly notional income for computation of just and reasonable compensation under the head of loss of income. Further, the High Court has failed to take into consideration the future prospects of income based on the principles laid down by this Court in catena of cases referred to supra. Therefore, the Appellant is justified in seeking for re- enhancement under this head as well and we hold that the claimant-Appellant is entitled to 50% increase under this head as per the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Santosh Devi (supra)."

7. One cannot forget that with rising cost of living the rates prescribed for minimum wages also keep rising. One cannot ignore that in 1998 the minimum wages for unskilled worker was prescribed as Rs.1,937/-. In 2008, the prescribed rate was Rs.3,683/- and in 2012 it was Rs.7,020/- . It is obvious that the prescribed minimum wages have more than doubled in ten years.

8. Reliance of learned counsel for the appellant on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Yeramma vs. G. Krishnamurthy (supra) is

misplaced. The facts of that case were entirely different. In that case the deceased was an ASI in the police said to be drawing a salary of Rs.26,000/- per month. The High Court had granted future prospects of 30%. The Supreme Court, keeping in account the fact that the age of the deceased was 53 years, did not grant 30% increase for future prospects. This observation was made on the facts and circumstances of that case. No proposition as is said to be urged was laid down by the Supreme Court in the said judgment that assessed income cannot be increased due to future prospects/future rise in prices.

9. In the present case, the deceased is less than 36 years of age. He is working in private service as a security guard in a security agency namely, SIS Security Services. PW1, in her cross examination said that her husband was educated up to intermediate and was employed with Bayer Metal House for the last three years and drawing a salary about Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month. She has placed on record the salary slip of her husband which is Ex.PW1/5 which shows the name of Bayer Metal House and SIS Security Services. However, as no witness was called from the employer, the tribunal did not accept the authenticity of the salary slip. The tribunal also noted that the accident took place in U.P. and the address of the deceased was also of U.P. In this background, the tribunal has taken minimum wages as prevalent in UP i.e., Rs.5,270/- per month.

10. In my opinion, for the purpose of awarding just and fair compensation, it would be necessary to add 50% as future prospects as has rightly been done by the tribunal for the purpose of determination of loss of dependency.

11. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.

12. Statutory amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal may be refunded to the appellant.

JAYANT NATH, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 'raj'