Babita Singhal & Ors v. Dilbag Singh & Ors

$-33 *?IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +�MACAPP. 255/2010 Appellant�BABITA SINGHAL & ORS Through Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate versus Respondent�DILBAG SINGH & ORS Through : Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA ORDE

26.04.2010%� This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against a judgment and order dated 14.12.2009 passed by learned Tribunal whereby the learned Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.14,97,000/- to the claimants in case of death of deceased. The present appeal assails the order on the ground that the compensation was on the lower side. The counsel for the appellant submits that future prospects of the progress in the business of the deceased have not been taken into account by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has meticulously followed the Delhi Transportv Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. judgment of the Supreme Court in Corporation & Anr. 2009 AC] 1298 and has taken into account the income of the deceased as per the income tax returns produced on the year of the death Sarla Verma'sof deceased. Multiplier has been taken as per law laid down in Dependency has also been calculated after giving deductions incase (supra). It has been categorically laid down by theSarla Verma's case (supra). terms of of the persons who are self-Smt. Sarla Verma's case(supra) Supreme Court in employed or persons having fixed income or the persons in business, the income of the year of death has to be considered by the Court in calculating the Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. compensation. The future prospects are to be added only in those cases where the deceased is in regular service and there are chances of his career promotions and his career has to progress during the service with the passage of time by getting promotions. The Apex Court declined taking into account the prospects of pay revision. That only shows that in case of self employment the compensation has to be calculated on the basis of actual income of the year. In case of business, the career prospect does not follow a uniform pattern as it is the case with regular service where a person's career progress by way of promotion etc. The future prospects were, therefore, rightly not added in making compensation calculations. I, therefore, find no force in this appeal. The appeal is he(eby dismissed. SHIV NARAIIMJ,,bHINGRA,J APRIL 26, 2010 rd