DHANPAT Vs. AJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for death of a person aged 28 years. The claimants were widow and parents. The deceased was said to be a driver and stated to be earning L 7,500/- per month. In absence of any material evidence, the Tribunal took the average income at L 4,500/-, provided for a 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses and adopted a multiplier of 17 to assess the loss of dependency at L 6,52,800/-. The Tribunal added L 20,000/- for loss of consortium, loss to estate and funeral expenses and determined a compensation at L 6,80,419/-. It allowed for L 4,00,000/- to be paid to the widow and the balance amount to the parents.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, who are the parents have a grievance that there must be a larger slice of compensation to the parent than what is provided to the widow and would also contend that the quantum assessed has not properly taken note of a prospect of future increase in salary. The learned counsel would rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors, 2012 6 SCC 421 to contend that the provision for future increase must be provided even in the private employment.

(3.) It must be noticed that the widow herself is not in appeal and only the parents are now claiming for further enhancement of compensation. As regards the contention that the decision in Santosh Devi's case must be understood as making possible a provision for future increase in every case, it must be noticed that the Supreme Court was actually considering the case of death of a person in an accident in the year 1992 where the Court was taking the income at L 1,000/- per month and the case was decided in 2012. Making a realistic assessment, the Court observed that the income must have increased over a period of time and provided further increase and took the average income at L 1,950/-. For an extraordinary situation of a disposal of the case more than 20 years later and an unrealistic income assessed at L 1,000/- per month for a person, who was self-employed in milk dairy and agriculture, the Court found that there ought to be a justification for increase at least at L 1,950/-. They were again considering a case that there were nearly 8 dependents on the deceased and a calculation, which provided for a contribution less than L 500/- to the family to be grossly low. The method of determining compensation in lump sum and making it available immediately or within a reasonable number of years instead of staggering the same over the life span of the dependents themselves factored in some way the inflationary trends. There is no further scope for making a provision for increase in every case where an income is shown.