MAC.APP./992/2012 of GUDDI RAWAT & ANR Vs LIYAKAT & ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ MAC. APP. 992/2012

Date of decision: 27[th] September, 2012

GUDDI RAWAT & ANR.

Through: versus

.... Appellants Mr.Manish Maini, Advocate

LIYAKAT & ORS.

.... Respondents

Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for R-3

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

J U M N T

G. P. MITTAL, J.

1.The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `13,53,200/- awarded in favour of the Appellants for the death of Deepak @ Deepak Rawat, bachelor aged about 25 years, who died in motor vehicle accident which occurred on 13[th]February, 2011. `13,53,200/- awarded in favour of the Appellants for the death of Deepak @ Deepak Rawat, bachelor aged about 25 years, who died in motor vehicle accident which occurred on 13[th]February, 2011.

2.In the absence of any Appeal by the driver/owner or the Respondent Insurance Company, the finding on negligence has attained finality. Respondent Insurance Company, the finding on negligence has attained finality.

3.The Claims Tribunal took into consideration the deceased’s salary certificate Ex.PW3/2-4 and the appointment letter Ex.PW3/1 to come to the conclusion that the deceased was working with Suryansh Educational Research Training & Development Society as Junior Accountant and was getting salary certificate Ex.PW3/2-4 and the appointment letter Ex.PW3/1 to come to the conclusion that the deceased was working with Suryansh Educational Research Training & Development Society as Junior Accountant and was getting

salary of `15,000/- per month including the conveyance of

`2,000/- per month.

4.The Claims Tribunal deducted `2,000/- which was being paid to the deceased as conveyance allowance and added 30% towards inflation to compute the loss of dependency. the deceased as conveyance allowance and added 30% towards inflation to compute the loss of dependency.

It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants that they were entitled to an addition of 50% as deceased was young boy of 25 years and had good future prospects. were entitled to an addition of 50% as deceased was young boy of 25 years and had good future prospects.

I have perused the appointment letter Ex.PW3/1 placed on record. The deceased was offered consolidated salary of `15,000/- per month. There was no evidence with regard to the deceased’s future prospects. The Appellants were, therefore, entitled to only an increase of 30% towards inflation on the strength of Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of ‘Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors’., 2012 (4) SCALE 559.record. The deceased was offered consolidated salary of `15,000/- per month. There was no evidence with regard to the deceased’s future prospects. The Appellants were, therefore, entitled to only an increase of 30% towards inflation on the strength of Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of ‘Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors’., 2012 (4) SCALE 559.

7.The impugned judgment does not call for any interference.

8.The Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly dismissed. dismissed.

9.Pending applications stand disposed of.

SEPTEMBER 27, 2012

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE