Jagwanti vs Bhoop Singh

Suresh Kait, J.—Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 1.9.2005, whereby learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs. 3,90,000 with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount. Vide the present appeal, appellant is seeking enhancement of the compensation amount noted above.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that on the date of accident, the deceased was 22 years of age. He was a bachelor and left behind parents. He was working with Net Based Solutions, Rohtak Road, Delhi and was earning Rs. 4,000 per month from his employer, which is proved by the salary certificate Ex. P.W.1/1. Simultaneously, he was pursuing Graduation and was in B.A. (2nd Year).

Further submitted that P.W.1, Inder Singh Dahiya has deposed that deceased was working with the aforesaid establishment and was drawing a salary of Rs. 4,000 per month. It is also on record that deceased was holding a Diploma in Web Designing and had a good future in the present era of computers.

Learned Counsel submitted that learned Tribunal has failed to add future prospects while calculating the compensation. Father of the deceased stated that his son was employed four-five years prior to the accident in question.

Learned Counsel further submitted that learned Tribunal has granted Rs. 30,000 in total towards non-pecuniary damaged, which is on a very lower side. At the time of accident, the deceased was 22 years of age and was a bachelor. He was a diploma holder in web designing and pursuing graduation. He had a good future. Therefore, learned Tribunal ought to have granted more amount towards non-pecuniary benefits.

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3/Insurance Company submitted that deceased was not in a permanent job. Moreover, neither any witness has been examined nor any proof has been filed to prove the fact that he will get the promotion or increase in the salary during the employment with the said establishment.

Learned Counsel further submitted that for considering the aspect of future prospects, one has to establish that there were promotional avenues, increase in the income and that the employment was permanent in nature.

To strengthen his arguments, learned Counsel has relied upon the cases of Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidyadhar Dutta and Others, and Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , which has been further affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, .

As regards the non-pecuniary benefits, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company submitted that towards loss of love and affection and expenses on last rites, learned Tribunal has granted Rs. 30,000, which is fair and just compensation. He submitted that accident took place in the year 2004 and we have entered in the year 2014, thus, ten years have already been passed and that the value of money was high at that time as compared to recent time. Therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly granted Rs. 30,000 towards non-pecuniary heads.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Admittedly, P.W.1, Sh. Inder Singh Dahiya has stated that deceased was working with Net Based Solutions, Rohtak Road, Delhi and was earning Rs. 4,000 per month. He proved the salary certificate as Ex. P.W.1/1. At the time of the accident, deceased was aged 22 years. He was employed four-five years prior to the accident. He was a diploma holder in web designing and at the same time pursuing Graduation and was in B.A. (2nd Year). Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that he had a good future in life. It has also to be borne in mind that the minimum wages are revised in just six months not only to meet the inflation but also to improve the standard of living of the lowest paid workers and to give them benefit of growth in GDP. Therefore, keeping in view the qualification and age of the deceased, he would certainly get a good salary in future.

Recently, in the case of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, , the Full Bench of the Supreme Court has held that the claimants are entitled for future prospects keeping in view the age of the deceased. Following the dictum in Rajesh (supra), and the age of the deceased, i.e., 22 years at the time of the accident, I also add 50% towards future prospects.

I find force in the submission of the Counsel for the respondent that the Tribunals and Courts should award just, fair and reasonable compensation and not a "bonanza" to the dependents or legal representatives of the victims in motor vehicle accidents. However, the accident took place in 2004, i.e., a decade ago, having regard to the higher rate of inflation which is a common phenomenon in Indian economy and keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, I enhance compensation from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 60,000 on account of non-pecuniary heads.

Accordingly, the compensation amount comes as under:

Accordingly, the enhanced compensation amount comes to Rs. 3,90,000 (Rs. 7,80,000 - Rs. 3,90,000).

The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

Accordingly, the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of six weeks from today, failing which, appellants/claimants shall be entitled for penal interest @ 12% per annum on account of delayed payment.

On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release the amount in favour of the appellants/claimants in terms of the award dated 1.9.2005 passed by the learned Tribunal. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.