Smt. Meena Devi and Others vs Ranjeet Paswan and Others

G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appellants wanted to move an application for additional evidence in order to prove the Appellants'' claim that the

deceased was getting salary of Rs. 6,000/-per month. Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that they (the Appellants) are unable to get any

witness to prove the salary of the deceased. She, therefore, does not want to move any application. It is submitted that the Appeal may be heard

on merits.

The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 4,25,952/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Claims Tribunal) in favour

of the Appellants for the death of Ganga Dhar Chaudhary who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 10.07.2007.

It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants that even if the deceased was not entitled to any addition towards the future prospects in the

absence of any evidence with regard to the same, yet they were entitled to an addition of 30% towards inflation on the basis of the judgment in the

case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, .

On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Seth, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 Insurance Company urges that the compensation awarded is just

and reasonable.

This Court in Rakhi v. Satish Kumar & Ors. (MAC. APP. 390/2011) decided on 16.07.2012, referred to the reports of the Supreme Court in

General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, , Smt. Sarla Dixit and another

Vs. Balwant Yadav and others, , Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidyadhar Dutta and Others, , Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and Another, and Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, and held that as per Santosh Devi even in the

absence of any evidence as to future prospects an increase of 30% in the income has to be provided where the victim had fixed income or was a

self employed person. Relevant portion of Santosh Devi is extracted hereunder:-

14.....In our view, it will be naive to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a

fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone

across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the

cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self- employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst

affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. The salaries of those

employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion

against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those

employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV

employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one

lac. Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with

the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been

incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal

basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter

category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by

stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be

the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. Therefore, we do not think that while making the

observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma''s judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will

be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person

who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he / she

becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation.

Applying Santosh Devi, loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,95,237/- (3663/- + 30% x 2/3 x 12 x 13) as against the award of Rs. 3,80,952/-.

No other contentions have been raised.

The compensation stands enhanced by Rs. 1,14,285/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of this Appeal till its

payment.

Out of enhanced compensation 15% shall be payable to each Kumari Anita and Smt. Bachchi Devi. Rest 70% shall enure for the benefit of

Appellant No. 1.

Eighty percent of the enhanced compensation awarded to Appellant No. 1 shall be held in fixed deposit for a period of two years, four years

and six years in equal proportion and rest shall be released on deposit.

The enhanced compensation awarded to Kumari Anita and Smt. Bachchi Devi shall be held in fixed deposit for a period of two years. The

Claimants shall be entitled to interest on quarterly basis.

The Respondent No. 3 Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest with the Claims Tribunal within six

weeks.

The Appeal is allowed in above terms. The pending Applications stand disposed of.