Govind Singh & Anr v. Tulsi Ram & Ors

J U D G M E N T G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM APPL.14713/2012 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The Application is allowed. CM APPL.14712/2012 (Delay) Delay of 35 days in filing the Appeal is condoned. The Application is allowed.

¶1The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of ` 3,14,248/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of the Appellants for the death of Bijender Singh in a motor vehicle accident which occurred 15.12.20074.

¶2In the absence of any Appeal by the driver, owner or the Insurer, the finding on negligence and liability has attained finality.

¶3During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that the deceased was working in a private company and was earning `4500/- per month. In the absence of any cogent evidence with regard to deceased's income the Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of unskilled worker as on the date of the accident, i.e. `3516/-, deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses as the deceased was a bachelor and applied the multiplier of 13 according to the age of the deceased's mother to compute the loss of dependency.

¶4The Claims Tribunal further awarded a sum of `25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and `15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

¶5Learned counsel for the Appellants urges that the Appellant were entitled to an addition towards future prospects/inflation. The Claims Tribunal ought to have been awarded some compensation towards loss to estate.

¶6On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and states that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable.

¶7The Appeal must succeed on both the grounds.

¶8This Court in Rakhi v. Satish Kumar & Ors. (MAC. APP.390/2011) decided on 16.07.2012, referred to the reports of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176, Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179, Bijoy Kumar Dugar v.

Bidya Dhar Dutta & Ors, (2006) 3 SCC 242, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559 and held that as per Santosh Devi even in the absence of any evidence as to future prospects an increase of 30% in the income has to be provided where the victim had fixed income or was a self employed person. Relevant portion of Santosh Devi is extracted hereunder:- "14…..In our view, it will be naive to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac. Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily

basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he / she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation."

¶9Thus, relying on Santosh Devi I am of the view that even in the absence of any evidence with regard to the deceased's future prospects, the Claimants were entitled to an addition of 30% towards inflation.

¶10The loss of dependency comes to ` 3,56,522/- (3516/- + 30% x 1/2 x 12 x 13) as against a sum of `2,74,248/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

¶11In Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,

(2009) 6 SCC 121 it was laid down that the notional sum of `5,000/- to `10,000/- should be awarded towards loss to estate. In the circumstances, I would make a provision of `10,000/- towards loss to estate.

¶12The overall compensation thus comes to `4,06,522/- (3,56,522/- + 50,000/-).

¶13The enhanced compensation of `92,274/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum which shall be equally shared between the Appellants.

¶14The enhanced compensation along with interest shall be deposited with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks.

¶15Seventy five percent of the enhanced compensation shall be held in fixed deposit for a period of two years. Rest shall be released on deposit.

¶16The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

¶17Pending Applications also stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE OCTOBER 31, 2012 vk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 31st October, 2012 + GOVIND SINGH & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. versus TULSI RAM @ VERMA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv. for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL