Rekha Yadav & Others v. United India Assurance Company Ltd. & Others

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

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR, I. (Oral) | For orders, see file of MAC APPEAL Nof 653/2010. lt U INDERMEET KAUR, J. JULY t[5], 2OL1a MAC APPEAL No.654/20L0 Page I o1'l F 2011:DHC:15410,F % -:'""iritu/l'si IN TI{E I{XG}I COURT' OF DEI,X-II AT NE\^/ DEI-HI Date ofJttclgtnent: I S. 07.201 I ]VIAC APPEAL NO. 653/201.0 & OTFIERS Mr. Hamu"a S.' rn"tfii:"11a'ts Advocate. Through:

VERSUS

UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LT'D. & OTI.]ERS rhroush: Mr. K.L. Nun[*u*:'il't[3]:lJ: for respondent No. 1..AND I{EKFIA YADA.V & OTI{ERS...Appellants Thror-rgh: Mr. Hameed S. Shaikh. Advocate.

VERSUS

UNTTED INDIA ASSURANCE COMPAN} LTD. & OTHERS 'Ihr^o, c;tr: Ir4r. K. L. I.J";;;;*:t.ffi13:lt:; lor respondent No. 1. AND M.&C AFFEAL No. G55/2010 NIRMALA DEVi & OTI{ERS 'Ihrough:

VERSUS

MAC APPEAL No.653-55/20 1 0 -L AN]TA DEV] N4r. Flarnoro s.' sh;tif;:"'ants Adrroca[e. I l)agc I ol'9 INDERMEET KAUR., T. (Oral) These are three appeals p::eferred by the legal heirs of cleceased pawan I(uinar, Jitender singh & Dev Karan. Trreir claim petitio' rrad been clecicled by a cornmo' j'dgment a'ci vidc Awar-d datecl tii.os.zor0 cempe'sation had been awarded in favour of the claimants. There is no dispute on the quantum granred under the head of no'-pect'riary clamages. Trre o'ly dispute is with 'egarcl t' the amounts awarciecl.,uncter the heacl of loss of dependency. All the three cleceased after their retirement from the India' Nauy had been employed with M/s DEC propl.ry Management Pvt' Ltd. on different 1-rosts. on 08. 1.1,.2008 they were travelling MACAppEALNo.653-55r20ro ve'rr'4vv.J Lrley pagr:2u[1].[9] -*-----/-."& U.VITED 'NDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY L'TD. & OTHERS rhror-rgh: fir K.L. N;"a*;;1:T3t[3]:l,,: ror respondent No. 1. CORAN,I: ftroN'tsI[8] MS.

JUSTXCE INDERMEET -KA{JR. 1.-Whether the Reporters of local papers may be see the judgment? To be referred to the Reporter or not? Whether the juclgment should..be reported in allowed to Yes Digest? Yes thq together in a Maruti Wagon (R) when their car collided with a Tata truck which was being driven in a fast and negligen[ manner; as a resr-rlt of this collision the motor cycle i.n front of the offending vehicle )reing driven by one Sunny Singh was hit; Sunny Singh sr-rsl"ained injuries; Pawan Kumar, Jitender Singh & Dev Karan all cUed on the spo[. t Four claim petitions had been preferred under Section 166 of the N{otor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'MV Act'); lhree by legal heirs/claimants of the deceased and the fourth claim pel-ition had been preferred by the injured Sunny Singh hirnself.

4 Iract as further emanating from the record are that Pararan I(umar was working as a Engineer; he was 33 years of age ou the claLe' of the accident; Jitender Singh was worki.ng als u.:t. Engineer; he was 35 years.of age on the date of the accident; Dev Karan was working as a Supervisor; he was 49 years of age on the clate of the accidenL;. Because of the untirnely dearh of the. aforenoted three persons, future prospects which had not been considered by the Tribunal have been claimed in th.ese appeais. The claimants of all the three deceased persons have sought an enhancement of their compensation. D ) Record shows that oral and documentarv evidence had been Pa-ue J ol'9. MAC APPEAL No.653-55/201 0 \\ led. To decide this controversy i.e. as to whether the legal heirs of the claimants were entitled" to future prospects, testimony of pw-5 is relevant. PW-s was P.s. Bhandari, Manager of M/s DEC Property Management Pvt. I-td.; appointment letter qua Dev Karan had l:een proved as Ex. pw-s/D showing that Dev Karan was appointed with the company at a monthly salary of Rs.1,6,041./-; the breakup of his salary had also been given showing that a gross earning of Rs.6,500/- towards basic pay besides dearness allowance; he was entitlecl to FIRA, meclical aliowance and city compensatory Allowance. Appointrnent letter qua Jitender singh had been proved as Ex. pw-S/B showing that Jitender'singh was appointed with the company at a monthly salary of Rs.36, B75l-; the breakup of his salary hacr also been" gliven showing that a qross earning of Rs.10,500/- turn,ards basic pay besides dearness allowance; he was entitled to "*: meclical allowance a:rd City compensatory Allowance. Appointm.ent letter qua Pauran'Kumar hacl been proved as Ex.PW-S/C showing that Pawan Kurnar was appointed with the company at a monthly salary of Rs.26,666/-; the breakup of hi.s salary hacl also been girren shorvirrg [hat a gross earning of Rs.8,000/- towards basic pay besides dearness allowance; he was enLilled to HRA. meciicaj allowance and City Compensatory allowance. The Tribunal had MAC APPEAL No.653:55/2010 pauc 4 ot-9.r:__r n/ not taken the allowances into consideration but the annual salary after deducting 10% as income tax had been computed as the. income. Ad'rit[edly future prospects had not been co'sidered. The 4' pensiou being received b], the d.eceased was also taken into co[sideration; 50% of the same was deducted; i<eeping in view the fact that the remaining 50% would have probabty been spent by tlre deceased r,rpon himself; this calculation up to this point suffers from no iufirmity. However fnture prospects shourd have been taken into account and the Tribunal has erred in not taking this into account. in tlre judgment reported in AiR 2009 sc 310a serla_verma_e others I,/s. Delhi 7i'ansoot-t.Corporation, tn.u Apex court has helcl that the filture prospects shoi-rld not he considered of deceased who are above 50 years of age. This leqislation is a sociallv benevolent legislation engrafted with an intent to allow compensation to be paid to the claimants of a deceasecl as early as possible; jt mus.L be a 'just cornpensation'. Aclmittedly in all the three cases i.e. Pawan Kumar,.Jitender singh and Dev Karan they were all aged below 50 years. Pawan Kumar was 33 years of age; 'Jitender singli was 35 years of age; Dev I(aran was 49 vears of age. on the date of the accident.

7 The Apex court in sarla verma (Supra) had also noted Lhat IvIAC APPEAL No.653-55/2010 l,aec 5 ol.[9] \) the future prospects may not be consicler,ecl if the deceased does not have a permanent job. Learned cournsel for the respondent has also placed reliance upon. the judgment of the Apex court reported in AIR 2006 sc 12ss Bijo-v Kumar Du[rar vS. Bjdvacl]tar Qpxta &-otherc to support his submission that to establish the claim of future'prospects, there must be cogent evidence. B L'r this context, the testinrony of pw-5 as noted supra is ', relevant. The appointment letters of.each of three persons are on record; admittediy all the three decea.sed persons were nechanical engineers; they were highly qnalifiecl; being special professional field; admittedlv ail of them had served in the Indian Navy prior to their.harring been a[1]:pointed in the service of M/s DEC property Manacyement pvt. Ltct. clause 4 of the appointment letter is also releveLnt. IL.states that their period of probation will be for a period of one year.. which may be extended at the discre[ion of t]re employer or this may be dispensed with even earlier or thereafter till confirmation Their appointment letters are datecl 2s.08.2008. The accidenL had occurrecl cjn 08.11.2008 i.e. witliin six months of the clate of their appointment. It is nobody's case that the cleceasecl haci ilny adverse reporb against them. Bifirrcation of salary of each ol. the deceased had also been pr:oduced in the eviclence of pw-S; there specialized MAC APITEAL \1o.653-55/201 0 lna Page 6 ol'9 t\ also a prornotion policy of the company. The promotion policy in fact states that a permanent employee is one who is employed. against a pel:nanent post and may also include a probationer; ^salary will be jncreased'annually in April ever year; the salary chart of the deceased placed on record also shows that M/s DEC Property Management Pvt. Ltd. was a large company having several employees on its worl< list. I From this record, it is apparent that the deceased were all special clualified professional persons who were working in the field of their speciaiized capacity; "it is also a known fact that these persons after having served in the Indian Navy had joined the service of M/s DEC Property Management Pvt. Ltd. The evidence lqd before the Tribunal establishes that their jobs were of a permanent'nature and lhey should ltave also bedn considered for future prospects; the promotion policy of the company aiso substhnliates enhancement..The rise in the price index and inflation for which notice has been taken by our counts time and again cannot be lost sight of; this has illegally been ignored by the Tribunal. There was ample evidence to snpport this's'Lrbmission of the atrrpellants. 'IIre judgment of. Biio_v Kumar Dugar (Supra) is inapplicable in this factual scenario.

10 The appellants are entitled to future prospects IvIAC APPEAL No.653-55/20 1 0 which would Page 7 ol'9,{ be clouble the amount of salary (in the case of Anita Devi and Rekha Yaclav and 30% in the case of Nirrnala Devi) after decluction of tax. This is in conformitv with the ratio of the catena of judgrnents reported in 2008 ACJ 2IB[2] (Delhi) Kanwar Deui Vs. Bansal RoadwauE, 2007 ACJ 2165 (Delhl) Lekhrai Vs. Suran Sinqlt and 2009 ACJ 1921 (Delhi) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Renu Dew

(I) In the case of Anita wife of deceased Pawan <23,5001- <11,2581: <35,2s0l- <zgs7t_ <37,307 tilr_3lt ' <33,577l- 18.394/- ?25,183/-X12X16: { 48,35,L361-

(II) in the case of Rekha Yadav wife of Jitencler

Salary of Lhe deceasecl { 32,500/- Adding future prospects 716,2501' 7 +a,tsot- Arlcling fan'rily pension <1,363/- (50,[1] 13/- Declr-rctiug 10% tax liability I5-0-11L 7 +s,tozt- Declucting 1/4Lh personal expenses T tt'ZlSl' 'fotal loss of dependencY N'IAC APPEAL No.653-55/20 1 0 Tss,aztt-x12x16 {e+,9+,lt+ll)age B o1'9 of loss of dependency Salary of lhe deceased Aclding future prospects Adctirig family pension Deducting 10% tax liability DeducLing 1/4th personal expenses Total loss of dependency \t In Lhe case of Nirmala Devi wife of deceased Dev Karan Salary of the deceasecl Adcling ftrLure 1:rospects Aclding family pension Deducting 1 0% tax.liability DeducLing 1/4th per.scinal expenses Total loss of clependency Tr+,oool- Tq,zoot- { 1B,2ool- <r 71s/: {rg,grs/- {r.ggv- 7tt,gz+t- <1,3,443/- T n,q+srxr2xL[3] = Tzo,gz,!ou- J.J,l i( o; '1 !1 I I 'l..,,..,l I T.i rt.i I h I I