AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Suresh Kait, J.—Vide the instant appeal, appellant has assailed the impugned award dated 07.07.2011, whereby ld. Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs. 13,05,640/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition, till the date of realization. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued the instant appeal on two grounds; firstly, the claimants failed to prove that the deceased was working as a plumber and he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. Despite that the ld. Tribunal has assessed the salary of the deceased as Rs. 6,448/- as per minimum wages for a skilled person.
The second ground argued by the ld. Counsel for the appellant is that ld. Tribunal has wrongly added 50% towards future prospects, whereas keeping in view the dictum of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , which has been further affirmed by the Full Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. delivered in Civil Appeal No. 4646 of 2009, since the deceased was not in the permanent job, therefore, the ld. Tribunal should not have added 50% towards future prospects.
Ld. Counsel further submits that towards love and affection and loss of consortium ld. Tribunal has wrongly granted Rs. 75,000/- (Rs. 25,000 x 3) and Rs. 50,000/- respectively without any basis.
I note, Insurance Company has not brought any evidence on record contrary to that the deceased was working as a plumber as has been established by the claimants. Though the claimants have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, however, they could not prove the same by way of any account or any salary certificate. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the ld. Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly salary as per the minimum wages for a skilled person.
So far as the issue of future prospects is concerned, in the case of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, , the Apex Court has opined that if the age of the deceased is up to 40 years, 50% future prospects have to be granted. In the present case, the age of the deceased was 40 years at the time accident. Therefore, keeping in view the dictum of Rajesh & Ors. (Supra), I am of the view that ld. Tribunal has rightly added 50% towards future prospects.
So far as the issue of compensation towards love and affection and loss of consortium is concerned, res-integra same has been considered by the Full Bench of the Apex Court in the Rajesh & Ors. (Supra).
In view of above, I do not find any discrepancy in the award passed by the ld. Tribunal.
Accordingly, instant appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, balance award amount shall be released in favour of the respondents/claimants. Statutory amount be also released in favour of the appellant.