FAO 294/2002 Page 1 of 6 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.294/2002 Date of decision:11th February, 2009 % GULSHAN & ORS. ..... Appellants Through : Mr. Raman Kapoor, Adv. for Mr. Gagan Gupta, Adv. versus G.S.GILL & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Kamal Deep, Adv. for R – 2. CORAM :- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may Yes be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT (Oral) 1. The appellants have challenged the award of the Learned Tribunal whereby the Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,40,000/- to the appellants. The appellants seek enhancement of the award amount. 2. On 21st March, 1994, the deceased Suresh Kumar was riding his two wheeler scooter bearing No.DL4SK 1013 near North Avenue when another scooter bearing No.DBZ-4295 hit him causing grievous injuries which resulted in his death on 28th March, 1994. FAO 294/2002 Page 2 of 6 3. The deceased was survived by his wife, two minor children and parents who filed the claim petition before the Learned Tribunal. The deceased was aged 30 years at the time of the accident and was running the business of painting in the name and style of M/s Sachin Art Services. 4. The deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month at the time of the accident. However, the Learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.2,807/- per month (Rs.33,685/- per annum) on the basis of the Income Tax return, Ex.PW-7/A for the year 1994-1995 in which the income was shown as Rs.33,685/- per annum. The Learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 after deducting 1/3rd personal expenses of the deceased. The compensation for loss of dependency was computed at Rs.4,05,000/-. The Learned Tribunal further awarded Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. 6. The appellants have filed this appeal on the following grounds: - (i) The future prospects have not been taken into consideration for computing the loss of dependency. (ii) The personal expenses of the deceased be taken as 1/5th instead of 1/3rd as the deceased has left behind five legal representatives, namely, his wife, FAO 294/2002 Page 3 of 6 two minor sons and parents. (iii) Enhancement of the compensation amount for loss of love and affection, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. 7. The income of the deceased is almost equal to the minimum wages for a skilled worker. In the cases of Kanwar Devi vs. Bansal Roadways, 2008 ACJ 2182, Lekh Raj vs Suram Singh, 2007 ACJ 2165 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Renu Devi III (2008) ACC 134, it has been held by this Court that the Court should take judicial notice of increase in minimum wages to meet the price index and inflation rate. It was further held that the minimum wages get doubled over the period of 10 years and increase in minimum wages is not akin to future prospects. In the case of Sarla Dixit vs. Balwant Yadav, 1996 SCC 1224, the Apex Court took the future prospects into consideration by taking the average of the income of the deceased and the double of it. 8. Following the aforesaid judgments, the average annual income of the deceased is computed as under: - Rs.33,685/- + Rs.33,685/- X 2 = Rs.50,527.50. 9. With respect to the personal expenses of the deceased, the deduction of 1/3rd as per personal expenses is not a thumb rule. Where the number of legal representatives are more, the Courts have deducted lesser personal expenses. FAO 294/2002 Page 4 of 6 Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment in the case of Surinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Inder Kapoor, II (2004) ACC 866, wherein personal expenses were deducted to the tune of 2/11. 10. The deceased had two brothers and, therefore, the responsibility of maintaining the parents is of all the three brothers. The parents were not solely dependent on the deceased as they had two other sons who also had the duty to look after their parents. The deduction of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses, therefore, does not call for any interference. 11. The Learned Tribunal has awarded lum-sum amount of Rs.25,000/- for loss of love and affection, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The counsel for the appellant refers to and relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Kaur Vs. Hiranand Sindhi, 2007 ACJ 2123, wherein interest @9% per annum has been awarded on Rs.50,000/- for loss of consortium in relation of an accident of 1982. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sulochana III 2007 ACC 50 (DB), the Madras High Court awarded Rs.50,000/- for loss of consortium. In the case of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Amresh Kumari, 2005 ACJ 538, this Court awarded Rs.50,000/- for loss of consortium. 12. Following the aforesaid judgments, I award Rs.50,000/- FAO 294/2002 Page 5 of 6 towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- to each of the appellant towards loss of love and affection. The findings of the learned Trial Court with regard to multiplier and medical expenses are upheld. Total compensation works out as under:- Income of the deceased : Rs.50,530/- p.a. (rounded of) (Rs.33,685 + Rs.33,685 x 2) divided by 2. Deduction towards : Rs. 16,843/- (1/3rd of 50,530/-) personal expenses Loss of Dependency : Rs.6,06,366/- [(Rs.50,530– Rs.16,843) x 18]. Loss of Consortium : Rs.50,000/- Loss of love and affection: Rs.50,000/- (Rs.10,000/- to each of the appellant No.1 to 5). Medical Expenses : Rs.10,000/- Total Compensation : Rs.7,16,366/- 13. The appeal is partially allowed by enhancing the award from Rs.4,40,000/- to Rs. 7,16,366/-. The interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.4,40,000/- from the date of filing of the petition till realization is not disturbed. However, the interest on the enhanced amount would be payable @7.5% from the date of filing of the petition till realization as per the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, III 2008 ACC 1 SC. CM No.640/2002 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. FAO 294/2002 Page 6 of 6 2. The application stands disposed of. CM No.13356/2007 and CM No.13357/2007 Already disposed of. J.R. MIDHA, J FEBRUARY 11, 2009 mk