Court No. - 27
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3054 of 2006 Appellant :- Dharamwati And Others Respondent :- Kunwar Pal Singh And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shailendra Pratap Singh, Kiran Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Kumar Nigam
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The appellants being dissatisfied with the quantification of compensation have preferred by the present appeal.
The appellants instituted a claim petition for death of one Shyam Veer in an accident on 20.10.2002. Shyam Veer was stated to be a Mason and was earning Rs.3000/- per month. In the aforesaid backdrop, a compensation of Rs.4,41,500/- has been prayed for.
The Tribunal in assessing the compensation has held that the deceased was a Mason. The Tribunal considering the nature of work of the deceased assessed the income to be Rs.2000/- per month i.e. Rs.24,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd from the said amount applied the multiplier of 17 for computing the compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,72,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.9,500/- towards conventional heads. Thus, in total, a sum of Rs.2,81,500/- alongwith 6% interest has been awarded by the Tribunal.
Challenging the finding on the issue of quantification of compensation learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the deceased was a Mason and the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side. He contends that there was sufficient material which indicated that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month and, therefore, in absence of rebuttal of evidence led by the appellants claimants, assessment of income of Rs.2000/- per month by the Tribunal is on lower side and the Tribunal should have have assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.3000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum. He further contends that the deceased was 28 years of age and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to 40% future prospect. He further contends that there are seven dependents of the deceased and, therefore, the Tribunal should have deducted 1/5th towards personal expenses of the deceased in place of 1/3rd. He further contends that the amount of Rs.9,500/- awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is inadequate and it should have enhanced to Rs.70,000/-. Lastly, he contends that 6% interest on the awarded amount is on lower side.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since there is no evidence on record in respect of income of the deceased, therefore, the Tribunal was right in assessing Rs.2000/- per month i.e. Rs.24,000/- per annum. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the facts of the present case is just and proper and is not liable to be interfered by this Court in appeal.
I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record.
The Tribunal on the basis of evidence of the appellants claimants held that the deceased was a Mason. In the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate to assess the income of the deceased to be Rs.3000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum considering the fact that the deceased was Mason and accident had occurred in the year 2002. Thus, the compensation shall be computed by treating the income of the deceased to be Rs.3000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum.
The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 (16) SCC 680 has held that the future prospect should be awarded even in cases where deceased was self employed. Thus, in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), considering the age of the deceased, this Court awards 40% future prospect on the income of the deceased.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in respect of wrong deduction of personal expenses has also substance in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, 2009 (6) SCC 121, accordingly, it is provided that the compensation shall be computed by deducting 1/5th in place of 1/3rd as there are seven dependents of the deceased. Further, the amount of Rs.9,500/- awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is also inadequate, and accordingly, same is enhanced to Rs.70,000/- in the light of the judgement of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra).
Submission as regards the lower rate of interest on the awarded amount of compensation has also substance and accordingly, it is provided that the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry 7% interest from the date of institution of the claim petition.
For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above.
The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount within a period of two months from today. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 S.Sharma