Delhi High Court
Gayatri Devi & Ors vs Arshad Ali & Ors on 18 March, 2016
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 18th March, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 405/2007
GAYATRI DEVI & ORS .... Appellants
Through: Mr. Manu Shahalia, Adv.
versus
ARSHAD ALI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Kumar Gola, Adv. foor
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Sharoo Ram, a Khalasi in Indian Railways, 52 years old at that time,
in receipt of salary in the total sum of ₹3,614/- per month died as a result of
injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that occurred at 12 noon on
30.06.1997 involving a scooter bearing No. DL 6SA 0492 (the offending
vehicle) which was admittedly insured against third party risk with the third
respondent (insurer). The dependant family members of Sharoo Ram
preferred a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (MV Act) on 17.1.2005, which was registered as Suit No.
198/2006 (2005) in which besides the insurer, the driver and owner of the
offending vehicle were also impleaded. The tribunal awarded compensation
in the sum of ₹ 3,80,000/- and calculated it thus:-
Loss of dependency : ₹ 3,35,000/-
Loss of love and affection: ₹ 25,000/-
Funeral expenses : ₹ 10,000/-
Loss to estate : ₹ 10,000/-
Total compensation : ₹ 3,80,000/-
2. The grievance of the appellants is that the subsequent increase in the
pay on recommendation of the Central Pay Commissions, would have
resulted in much more salary accruing to the deceased and, therefore, loss of
dependancy needs to be reworked. The following observations of the
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 only need to be quoted to reject this
contention:-
"45. The assumption of the appellants that the actual
future pay revisions should be taken into account for the
purpose of calculating the income is not sound. As against
the contention of the appellants that if the deceased had
been alive, he would have earned the benefit of revised pay
scales, it is equally possible that if he had not died in the
accident, he might have died on account of ill health or
other accident, or lost the employment or met some other
calamity or disadvantage. The imponderables in life are too
many. Another significant aspect is the non-existence of
such evidence at the time of accident.
46.In this case, the accident and death occurred in the year
1988. The award was made by the Tribunal in the year
1993. The High Court decided the appeal in 2007. The
pendency of the claim proceedings and appeal for nearly
two decades is a fortuitous circumstance and that will not
entitle the appellants to rely upon the two pay revisions
which took place in the course of the said two decades. If the
claim petition filed in 1988 had been disposed of in the year
1988-89 itself and if the appeal had been decided by the
High Court in the year 1989-90, then obviously the
compensation would have been decided only with reference
to the scale of pay applicable at the time of death and not
with reference to any future revision in pay scales."
3. The claimants also submitted that the award under the non-pecuniary
heads of damages is unduly low and that there is no award for loss of
consortium. This Court in FAO 102/2001 Madhu Marwaha & Anr. Vs. Dal
Chand & Anr., decided on 1st February, 2016, where the fatal accident had
occurred on 17.05.89, took the following view:-
"Having regard to the date of the accident and the facts and
circumstances of this case noted above, non-pecuniary
damages in the sum of `50,000/- on account of loss of
consortium, `50,000/- on account of loss of love & affection,
`10,000/- on account of funeral expenses and `10,000/- on
account of loss of estate are hereby added".
4. In the present case, similar awards are made in lieu of what was
granted by the tribunal. Thus, the total compensation in the case at hand
comes to ₹ 4,55,000/-. Needless to add it shall carry interest as levied by
the tribunal. It is further directed that the entire enhanced portion of the
compensation with corresponding interest shall be payable to the first
appellant (widow) only.
5. With above modification in the award, the appeal is disposed of with
direction to the insurer to pay the same through the tribunal within 30 days.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 18, 2016/nk
