AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs. 18,21,520/- awarded in favour of the Respondents No.1 to 4 for the death of the deceased Deepak Srivastava who died in a motor accident which occurred on 22.12.2005. The deceased Deepak Srivastava was running a refreshment shop and STD/ISD booth in the name and style of M/s. Srivastava Corner, Shop No.2, Ring Road bus stand, Satya Niketan, New Delhi. The First Respondent claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Claims Tribunal) took the deceased income to be Rs. 95,640/- per annum as per the Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2005-06, added 50% towards future prospects and computed the loss of dependency as Rs. 17,21,520/-.
The contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant Insurance Company are:
i) The deceased was a self-employed person; addition of 50% as future prospects was not permissible as per Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another,
ii) The compensation of Rs. 60,000/- awarded for the loss of love and affection is on the higher side.
During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, the Income Tax Returns from the Assessment Year 2001-02 upto the Assessment Year 2005-06 were proved. These are tabulated hereunder:
Assessment Year
Income (in Rs. )
2001-02
Rs. 52,400/-
2002-03
Rs. 55,480/-
2003-04
Rs. 57,000/-
2005-06
Rs. 95,640/-
Of course, the Respondents (the Claimants) did not produce on record the Income Tax Return for the year 2004-05, but there is no suggestion that the deceased had no income during this period. A perusal of the various Income Tax Returns would show that the deceased''s income was consistently increasing on year to year basis. In Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.(supra), the Supreme Court ruled that in case of a self employed person, usually future prospects are not to be added. However, in my opinion when there is specific evidence of consistent increase in the income, the dependents would be entitled to an addition towards the future prospects as per the scale provided in Sarla Verma & Ors.(supra). The Claims Tribunal, therefore, rightly added the future prospects in this case.
Award of compensation of Rs. 60,000/- towards loss of love and affection was slightly on the higher side. Loss of love and affection can never be measured in terms of money. Thus, uniformity has to be adopted by the Courts while granting non-pecuniary damages. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma and Others Vs. Bachitar Singh and Others, and in Baby Radhika Gupta and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, granted only Rs. 25,000/- (in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and affection. Thus, I would reduce the compensation under this head to Rs. 25,000/- only.
In an award of Rs. 18,21,520/-, a variation of Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- does not impel me to interfere with the award. In my view, the compensation awarded is just and reasonable.
The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal shall be disbursed/held in Fixed Deposit in terms of the impugned judgment.
The Appeal is devoid of any merit; it is accordingly dismissed.
The statutory amount shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company. No costs.