Delhi High Court
Himadri Dutta & Ors vs Joginder Singh & Ors on 26 May, 2015
Author: Jayant Nath
$~
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Pronounced on: 26.05.2015
+ MAC.APP.441/2012
HIMADRI DUTTA & ORS. ..Appellant
Through Mr.A.Acharji and
Mr.A.K.Mishra, Advs.
Versus
JOGINDER SINGH & ORS. ...Respondent
Through Mr.Pankaj Seth, Adv. for
R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.
1. The present appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement
of compensation as per Award dated 30.11.2010. The brief facts are that
late Dr.Nabonita Dutta is stated to have died due to rash and negligent
driving of respondent No.1 at Toll Tax barrier near Kalindi Kunj, Police
Station Sarita Vihar, New Delhi.
2. Based on the evidence on record the Tribunal concluded that the
deceased died due to rash an negligent driving of respondent No.1.
3. On compensation the Tribunal noted that the deceased was highly
meritorious and possessed educational qualification of M.Sc., M.Phil and
PHD in physics. She was working as Principal Investigator with Central
Road Research Institute and getting a monthly income of Rs.15,000/-.
She was 37 years old. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal
expenses and awarded loss of dependency of Rs.18,00,000/-. Rs.10,000/-
was awarded towards funeral charges, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love
and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/-
towards loss of estate. A total compensation of Rs.18,80,000/- was
awarded.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has stated that the
compensation is not adequate. He has made three submissions for
enhancement of the compensation, He firstly submits that the deceased
had a bright future and her income would certainly have arisen over time.
The Tribunal while calculating loss of dependency has not granted future
prospects. It is secondly submitted that one of the claimants Master
Shivadri Dutta i.e. appellant No.3 is suffering from 'autistic features' and
is undergoing treatment from AIIMS and Adlakha Speach and Hearing
Clinic. It is urged that he has lost the care and affection of his mother on
account of which the appellant No.1 is forced to retain an attendant.
Hence, it is urged that the appropriate compensation for attendant charges
may also be awarded to the claimants. It is thirdly submitted that the
Tribunal has awarded interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing
of the claim petition. It is stated that the compensation should be
awarded from the date of the accident.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has argued that the
compensation awarded is already on the higher side. It is urged that the
husband, namely, appellant No.1 was not financially dependent on the
deceased, his wife and no loss of dependency could be awarded.
6. As far as grant of future prospects while computing loss of
dependency is concerned, I can take judicial note of the fact that
minimum wages for a matriculate in 2002 were Rs.3115.40/- P.M. and in
2012 were Rs.8528/- P.M. It is obvious that the prescribed minimum
wages have more than doubled in ten years.
7. 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 below 40 years an addition of 50%
should be made in the wages for the purpose of computing loss of future
earnings.
8. 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 injury to a
student who was studying in Class XI aged 16 years had awarded 50%
increase for future prospects.
9. Further, this court in the case of ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Company vs. Angrej Singh & Ors. in MAC APP. 846/2011 in
judgment dated 30.09.2013 had gone into this issue and had noted the
judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma and
Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., 2009 ACJ 1298,
Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., 2013 ACJ 1253,
Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (supra) and other judgments and
concluded that future prospects should be given to persons who are self-
employed or on fixed wages.
10. I may further note that this court in MAC APP.761/2012 Rakesh
and Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. vide judgment dated
02.04.2014 had in a case where the deceased was 24 years old added 50%
to the income towards future prospects for computing loss of dependency
based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors.
vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors.(supra). Against the said judgment the appellant
had filed an SLP before the Supreme Court. The said SLP No.5612/2014
was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10.10.2014.
11. Accordingly, I enhance the income of the deceased by 50% for the
purpose of computing loss of dependency. The loss of dependency thus
amounts to Rs.27,00,000/- [{(15,000/- + 50%) - 1/3} x 12 x 15].
12. Coming to attendant charges, the Tribunal has already awarded a
sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the children. I
enhance the sum to Rs.1,00,000/-.
13. Coming to the third contention of the appellants regarding rate of
interest being awarded from the date of accident, there is no merit in the
said claim of the appellants.
14. Total compensation now payable to the appellant would be as
follows:-
Loss of dependency Rs.27,00,000/-
Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/-
Funeral Charges Rs.10,000/-
Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.28,30,000/-
15. Respondent No.3 may deposit the additional compensation amount
as directed by this Court alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing the claim petition till deposit in Court. On receipt of the
said amount same may be disbursed to the claimants in the same
proportion as directed by the Tribunal. Appeal stands disposed of.
(JAYANT NATH)
JUDGE
MAY 26, 2015
n
