Alka Devi and Others vs Inderpal Sharma and Others

K. Kannan, J.—The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for death of a male said to be 23 years of age. The claimants were widow, one month old child and parents. The Court discarded the claim for father saying that he was not a dependent. The Court had taken the income at Rs. 4,200/- per month, adopted a multiplier of 17 taking the age to be 26 years and determined a compensation of Rs. 5,86,200/-. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants says that the Court must have provided for a prospect of future increase in the manner laid down by the Supreme Court in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, and adopted a multiplier of 18 since the deceased was only 23 years of age as found in the medico legal report. The medico legal report was not itself exhibited as evidence but it was only assigned Mark B.

I will not find a justification for a prospect of future increase in salary as to be invariably applied without minding any form of evidence. Santosh Devi''s case has not laid down such a law. The Court was considering a case of a person whose income was said to be Rs. 1,000/- per month. The claim related to death of a person in the year 1993 and the Supreme Court was deciding the case in the year 2012. Considering the comparatively long period between the date of death and the final disposal, the Court found that the income of Rs. 1,000/- per month was grossly low and it provided for an increase to take the income as Rs. 1,900/- per month. Even, there the income taken by the Court when the decision was made in the year 2012 did not go beyond Rs. 2,000/- per month. The prospect of future increase was dealt with by the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, where a person, who was in a stable employment with a future prospect of increase in salary over the period of time would make possible the Tribunal to factor such an increase and allow for 30% or 50% escalation depending on the age of the person. The manner of securing a compensation by a lump sum and providing for a multiplier to yield a return in stable economy indeed accelerates the payment without staggering it for the rest of the life and that itself ought to be taken as a proper equalizer, for, even the inflationary trends, an unskilled or a semi-skilled person such as the deceased in this case, who was a Cleaner, was shown to be earning Rs. 4,200/- per month, I cannot make an unrealistic projection that over the period of time, there must have been a 50% increase. The argument made by the counsel is another way of saying that in every situation where income is shown, there must an addition be made at 30% or 50%. There is no such law that future increase of income should be always conjectured and perhaps statutory provisions will make for such an event in future. There needs some certainty in law and every judgment of the Supreme Court or the High Court must be understood on the particular facts that give rise to the adjudication. I cannot find in the judgment in Santosh Devi''s case as a law that allows as an invariable principle of prospect of increase in all types cases, without minding any kind of evidence and applying a pure conjectural application of increase. I reject the plea for further increase over the average salary and I will take the income at Rs. 4,200/- per month taken by the Tribunal as appropriate. A 1/3rd deduction also conforms the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma''s case and I will adopt a multiplier of 18 instead of 17, for, there was no reason why the medico legal report was not exhibited as evidence. If the postmortem certificate showed his age to be 23 years and the claimants were also making such an assertion, the Tribunal was in error in assuming that the person must have been 25/26. If a multiplier of 18 is to be applied, the extent of dependency will be Rs. 6,04,800/-. I will retain the conventional heads of claim as ordered by the Tribunal, namely, Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses and add another sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss to estate. The total amount of compensation would be Rs. 6,24,800/-. The amount in excess of what has been awarded by the Tribunal will attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. That award of the Tribunal stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.