Asha Rani v. Ravi

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) CM No.16963/2011 (for exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. CM No.16962/2011 (for delay) The award impugned is the Award dated 19.4.2011. Along with the appeal an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condition of delay of 50 days in filing the appeal has been 2011:DHC:4644 filed. In view of the averments made in the said application and the explanation tendered the delay is condoned. Application is disposed of.

1. Arguments have been heared.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded that there is no specific ground on which the impugned Award has been assailed. Contention is that the claimant is a very poor person and this petition be treated as a mercy petition; the total amount of compensation of `9,56,035/- is on the lower side and accordingly the award be enhanced.

3. Record shows that in an accident which had occurred on 01.1.2011 the deceased had succumbed to his injuries. The claim petition had been filed by his five financially dependent members of the family; since there was no specific proof of income the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker as on the date of the accident (which was `5300/-) was taken into account; the fact of the inflation on the minimum wages which could have increased by 100% in the next 10 years was also accounted for; giving the aforenoted benefits the average income of the deceased has been computed at `7950/- per month. Court had noted that the parents of the deceased were not financially dependent upon the deceased; they were living separately; only three persons were financially dependent upon him. This was in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme court reported in 2009 (6) Scale 129 Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. 1/3rd thus was deducted as expenses; the loss of dependency was thus paid at `8,90,400/-; this was as per the following formula i.e. `7950- `2650 (1/3rd expenses)x12x14 = `8,90,400/-. This calculation in terms of the judgment of the Sarla Verma (supra) suffers from no infirmity. Under the head of non-pecuniary damages, loss of consortium was calculated at `10,000/-; loss of love and affection was calculated at `20,000/-; funeral expenses were calculated at `5000/-. The medical expenses in the sum of `30,635/- had also been reimbursed in terms of the bills which had been filed by the claimed. The aforenoted finding suffers from no infirmity. The compensation had been apportioned in favour of the widow and the two minor children; `2,00,000/- was given to each of the two minor children and the balance had been afforded to the widowed wife. 20% of the awarded amount had forthwith direction directed to be released to the claimant. The Award in no manner and on no count suffers from any infirmity. Appeal is without any merit. Dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J. SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 nandan