Gurdeep Kaur vs Gurpreet Singh

M. Jeyapaul, J.—The claimants who are the widow, minor children, daughter and parents of the deceased Sanjeev Kumar have filed the present appeal, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. It was contended by the claimants that the deceased was owning some land. He was not only cultivating the land but was also running diary farming business. The Tribunal held that there was no credible evidence to establish the same. But considering the fact that the deceased was the owner of tractor bearing registration No. PB-16-C-9688 and that he also possessed a driving license the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 5000/-. The deceased was 27 years old when the accident took place. Nothing was awarded towards future prospects. The Tribunal also virtually awarded no interest on the amount awarded. Only in case where the respondents failed to pay the compensation amount awarded by it within three months from the date of award, the award shall carry 7% interest per annum from the date of award till realisation, it was held.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that as per the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, " 50% of the income will have to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects. He would also submit that the appellants are entitled to interest from the date of petition.

The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would vehemently submit that even as per the decision in Santosh Devi, only 30% can be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, as he was treated only as a skilled worker.

It is the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was 27 years old when the accident took place. In Santosh Devi, the Hon''ble Supreme Court considering the fact that the deceased was 45 years old chose to add 30% of the income towards future prospects of the deceased who was receiving fixed wage.

The Bench of this Court in F.A.O. No. 1943 of 2010 Poonam, etc. Vs. Rajbir Rawal, etc., dated 23.1.2013 held that where the deceased was self employed or was paid fixed wages, 30% of the income of the deceased should be added to his income towards future prospects.

Referring to the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Santosh Devi and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Poonam, this Court made the following observation in F.A.O. No. 6897 of 2010 dated 11.3.2013 Smt. Renu Devi and others v. Sh. Mohammad Younis, and others,:--

Of course, the deceased in the aforesaid case which came up for decision before the Bench of this Court was 37 years old at the time of the accident but it is to be seen that no arguments was advanced before the Bench of this Court that in case of death of a wage earner below 40 years, 50% of the income should be added on the income of the deceased towards future prospects in the face of the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Santosh Devi. The Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case was simply called upon to resolve the contentious issue arising on account of the above observations made in Sarla Verma and subsequently in Santosh Devi by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. In Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, " it has been categorically held that there shall be an addition of 50% of income on the income of the deceased towards future prospects, if the deceased was below 40 years and there shall be an addition of 30%, If the age of the deceased was 40-50 years. In Santosh Devi, considering the case of a labourer who died at the age of 47, the Supreme Court held that 30% of the income of the deceased should be added to the income of the deceased. I was also observed there in that the formula adopted in Sarla Verma will have to be applied in the case of death of labourers as well. A labourer who received a daily wage of Rs. 50/- about 7 years ago has started getting at least a sum of Rs. 150-200/-per day. Though, there is no fixed increment for him on his daily wage, the minimum wage is periodically is increased by the State governments concerned taking into account the cost of living. In fact the cost of living affects one and all, irrespective of the class to which the victim belongs. A labourer who gets a sum of Rs. 3750/- per month would not be getting the same wage even after 17 long years. In view of the above, I find that applying the principle of 30% addition towards the future prospect of the deceased who was a labourer without considering the slab contemplated in the case of Sarla Verma would be unfair, inappropriate and discriminatory. In view of the above, I find that 50% of the income in case of a labourer or a wage earner or a person with a fixed salary without increment in case he was below 40 years and 30% income in case he was between 40-50 years will have to be added towards their future prospects while calculating loss of dependency.

In view of the above, I hold that an addition of 50% of the income should be added to the income of the deceased aged 27 years towards future prospects.

The accident had taken place on 13.1.2011. The award was passed on 22.11.2011. The liability to meet the claim by the insurance company had arisen as on 17.3.2011, the date on which claim petition was filed but not on 22.11.2011, the date on which the award was passed. Therefore, interest at the rate of 7% per annum will have to be awarded on the total amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 10,20,000/- (Rs. 5000 + 50% thereof = Rs. 7500/- minus 1/3rd thereof = Rs. 5000 x 12 = Rs. 60,000/- x 17 = Rs. 10,20,000/-) towards loss of dependency, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium of the 1st appellant, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses, in aggregate a sum of Rs. 10,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the entire amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realisation is awarded. The ratio of apportionment adopted by the Tribunal shall be applied for the apportionment of the enhanced portion of the compensation. With the above modification in the quantum of compensation, the appeal is allowed in part.