REENA & Ors. v. MAHENDER KUMAR SHARMA & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 12 Jan 2012
- Bench
- G P MITTAL
Outcome
Allowed
The Appeal is allowed in above terms
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
Judgment
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Adv. versus MAHENDER KUMAR SHARMA & ANR..... Respondents Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv.for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL J U D G M E N T G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
The Appellants seek enhancement of the compensation in respect of the death of Krishan Kumar who succumbed to the fatal injuries suffered in an accident which took place on
21.05.2006. It is argued by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the deceased was a young person, aged about 29 years, he was just at the threshold of his business, the Tribunal, ought to have added 50% to the deceased’s income of Rs.61,300/- taken on the basis of the income tax return submitted by the deceased.
It is also urged that the compensation awarded towards the loss of love and affection was on the lower side. Reliance is placed MAC APP 532/2010 on a judgment of this Court in Gulshan v. G.S. Gill, being FAO No.294/2002 decided on 11.02.2009.
On the other hand, it is submitted by Ms. Suman Bagga, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 Insurance Company that in the absence of any evidence as to the future prospects in the case of a self-employed person, the Tribunal rightly did not grant any future prospects. Reliance is placed on Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1255 and Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.
It is not disputed that the deceased was aged about 29 years. There was only one Income Tax Return filed by the deceased for the year 2005-2006 whereby he returned income of Rs. 61,300/-. There is no evidence that the business was expanding gradually on year to year basis.
In view of the judgments in Bijoy Kumar Dugar (supra), Gulshan v. G.S. Gill (supra) will not apply to the facts of the present case the Tribunal rightly declined an addition of the income on account of future prospects. Award of a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of love and affection was on the lower side. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627 granted only ‘25,000/- (in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and affection. Thus, the award MAC APP 532/2010 towards the loss of love and affection is raised to Rs. 25,000/- from ‘ 10,000/-.
The enhanced compensation of Rs.15,000/- shall carry interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the payment. The enhanced amount may be deposited in favour of the Appellant No.1 before the Tribunal, which shall be released to the Appellant No.1 forthwith.
Operative part
The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
Dasti. JANUARY, 12, 2012 (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MAC APP 532/2010
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Appeal is allowed in above terms
Which court decided this case, and when?
Delhi High Court, on 12 Jan 2012. The bench was G P MITTAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.