Lalita Devi and Ors. v. Karambir and Anr

Delhi High Court · 08 Jan 2014 · 2014:DHC:110
Suresh Kait
MAC.APP. 1180/2012
2014:DHC:110
civil appeal_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation in a fatal motor accident claim by adding future prospects and increasing non-pecuniary damages, relying on Supreme Court precedents.

Full Text
Translation output
MAC.APP. 1180/2012
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
delivered on: 8th January, 2014
MAC.APP. 1180/2012
LALITA DEVI AND ORS ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Adv.
Versus
KARAMBIR AND ANR ..... Respondents Represented by: NEMO.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Pursuant to order dated 09.11.2012, Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, Adv. appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2 / insurance company on 24.01.2013. Thereafter, none preferred to appear on behalf of the said respondent. The said situation continued on last two consecutive dates. Same is the position today. Hence, this court has no option but to proceed with the matter.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 03.07.2012, whereby, ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for a sum of Rs.7,18,159/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

3. The present appeal is for enhancement of the compensation amount as noted above. 2014:DHC:110

4. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that at the time of accident, deceased Nageshwar Sahni was at the age of 45 years and ld. Tribunal has not added any future prospects.

5. To strengthen his arguments, ld. Counsel has relied upon a case of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 56, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:

“11. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi's case (supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and to make it applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years.” 12. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those self-employed or on fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15% in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter.

6. Ld. Counsel further submits that towards non-pecuniary benefits, ld. Tribunal has granted a very meagre amount, i.e., Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- each for loss of estate and towards funeral expenses. He further submits that no compensation has been granted towards loss of consortium.

7. Keeping in view the dictum in Rajesh (Supra), I add 30% towards future prospects.

8. The deceased left behind six dependents, i.e., wife, mother and four sons. He was from a labourer class. Since his salary could not be proved, therefore, ld. Tribunal considered his income as Rs.5,278/- as per the minimum wages applicable to unskilled person on the date of the accident.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that ld. Tribunal has granted less amount towards non-pecuniary heads. Therefore, I grant Rs.1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- toward funeral expenses. Consequently, the compensation amount comes as under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation granted by ld. Tribunal Compensation granted by this Court.

1. Loss of dependency Rs. 6,72,000/- Rs.8,64,536.40/-

2. Towards loss of Love and affection Rs.25,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-

3. Towards loss of Consortium Nil Rs.1,00,000/-

4. Towards loss of Estate Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/-

5. Towards funeral Expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.25,000/-

4,790 characters total

6. Cost of Treatment Rs.11,159/- Rs.11,159/- Total Rs.7,18,159/- Rs.11,10,695.4/-

10. Resultantly, the enhanced compensation amount comes to Rs.3,92,536.4/- (Rs.11,10,695.[4] – Rs.7,18,159).

11. The enhanced amount shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

12. Accordingly, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interest with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of five weeks from today, failing which, appellants/claimants shall be entitled for penal interest @ 12% per annum on account of delayed payment.

13. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release the amount in favour of the appellants/claimants proportionately in terms of the impugned award dated 03.07.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal on taking necessary steps by them.

14. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.

SURESH KAIT, J JANUARY 8, 2014 jg