MAC APP 334/2009 Page 1 of 2 $~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 15th December, 2011 + MAC APP. 334/2009 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. P. K. Seth, Adv. Versus SUDHA RANI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kundan Kumar Lal, Adv. for Respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Amit Kumar Mittal, Proxy for Mr. S. K. Vasisht, Adv. for Respondents No.5 & 6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL J U D G M E N T G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The appeal is for reduction in the amount of compensation of ` 10,69,600/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of Ram Bhool Singh, who was aged 47 years at the time of accident and was working as a Foreman with Buildwell Engineers & Contractors. The grievance of the Appellant Insurance Co. is that there was no evidence as to the future prospects of the deceased yet 50% addition was made on account of future prospects. It is submitted that even if it is assumed that the deceased had future prospects, considering his age, he was MAC APP 334/2009 Page 2 of 2 entitled to increase of only 30% and not 50% in view of Sarla Varma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121. 2. The deceased was in settled employment. In the circumstances he was entitled to future prospects. It is, however, true that the Tribunal erred in granting 50% towards future prospects. In view of Sarla Varma (supra) as per the deceased’s age the Claimants would be entitled to an increase of 30% only on account of future prospects. The number of Claimants was four; therefore, the deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4th instead of 1/3rd as made by the Tribunal. As per the revised calculation the dependency works out as ` 10,03,860/- as against ` 10,29,600/-. The deceased also left behind two minor children and a mother. No compensation was awarded towards loss of love and affection. If an amount of ` 25,000/- is considered as compensation towards loss of love and affection the figure comes to ` 11,83,300/- . 3. In the circumstances no interference is called for in the impugned award. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 4. The statutory amount, if deposited by the Appellant Insurance Co., shall be released. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE DECEMBER 15, 2011/hs