AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Leave granted.
The deceased was a painter by profession. However, the High Court has classified the deceased under the head of semi-skilled worker and quantified the income of the deceased at Rs.9,438/- per month (minimum wages of semi-skilled worker as on the date of the accident). Based on the same, the High Court in the impugned judgment has awarded Rs.18,45,000/- with 9% interest per annum thereon as total compensation.
It is no doubt true that the High Court has awarded higher compensation under the conventional heads.
However, lesser compensation was awarded under the head of loss of financial dependency inasmuch as the High Court has not taken into consideration the future prospects of the deceased. We find on the facts of the case that an addition of 40% should have been made to the income of the deceased, as per this Court's decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. Having regard to the age of the deceased, income of the deceased, the aforementioned addition in future prospects and all other factors, in our considered opinion, interests of justice will be met if Rs. 20 lakhs is awarded as compensation. Thus, the appellants are entitled to Rs.20 lakhs compensation from the respondents with 9% per annum interest thereon from the date of filing the petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-2, Central Delhi, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The compensation awarded by the High Court is modified to the said extent.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.