MAC APP.No.1118/2011 Page 1 of 2 $~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 13th December, 2011 + MAC.APP. 1118/2011& CM. No.22441/2011(delay) SARITA & ORS ..... Appellants Through Ms. Parul Sharma, Advocate for counsel for Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate versus BIRJU & ORS ..... Respondents Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL J U D G M E N T G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appellants seek enhancement of compensation in respect of death of Divakar Prasad who died in an accident which took place on 24.10.2007. The deceased was a little more 30 years on the date of the accident. The Tribunal by the impugned order believed the deceased’s salary to be Rs.5,000/- per month plus allowance of Rs.600/- per month towards Provident Fund employer’s contribution, Rs.237/- towards ESI contribution and MAC APP.No.1118/2011 Page 2 of 2 payment of Rs.700/- per month(Rs.8,400/- per annum) towards bonus. Thus, the deceased’s salary was taken as Rs.6,537/- per month. The Tribunal made addition of 50% towards future prospects and applied the multiplier of “16” to calculate the dependency. In addition, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant that it was deposed by PWs1 and 3 that the deceased had a very good future prospects and, therefore, future prospects more that 50% of the deceased’s income ought to have been considered. There is no extraordinary qualification which would persuade this Court to take this case as an exception as laid down in Sarla Varma V. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) Scale 129. The overall compensation of Rs.14,72,016/- granted by the Tribunal is just and proper. There is no ground to interfere in the impugned award. 3. The Appeal is devoid of merit; the same is accordingly dismissed. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE DECEMBER 13, 2011 pst