The High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed for seeking enhancement of compensation as awarded by award dated 04.01.2019.
Brief Facts:
The case of the claimants before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal was that on 17.07.2017 at about 5.00 a.m., the claimant’s predecessor Mr. Ram Prakash Verma was travelling in light goods vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The vehicle ran into a stationary goods vehicle which was parked in the middle of the road without any indicator or signal. The predecessor of the appellants Mr. Ram Prakash Verma sustained fatal injuries and expired.
Tribunal’s Decision:
The Tribunal, while assessing the income of the deceased, noticed that the deceased was working as a gardener and no evidence was produced to prove his education or income. It had come on record that the deceased had passed 8th Standard. In the absence of any cogent evidence with regard to his employment or income, the Tribunal held that the income should be on the basis of the then prevailing minimum wage i.e., Rs. 9724/- per month for unskilled worker.
Appellant’s Contention:
The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding Rs. 9724/- as the minimum wage, whereas the on the date of the accident i.e., 17.07.2017 for non-matriculate was Rs. 14,958/- including Dearness Allowance. He relies upon the order of the Government of NCT of Delhi. Learned counsel has contended that the tribunal has erred in taking the minimum wage of an unskilled worker whereas the minimum wage for non-matriculate was to be taken.
HC’s observations:
The HC observed that there is no dispute that the deceased was a matriculate and as such the minimum wage of a matriculate was liable to be taken into account and not the minimum wage of an unskilled worker. Further, even the minimum wage of an unskilled worker, as per the said circular, was much higher. The Court found that the tribunal has erred in granting a consolidated sum of Rs. 40,000/- for ‘Loss of Consortium’. The Court said that it is settled position that not only the spouse but the children and parents are entitled to compensation on the ground that loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium.
The HC also found that the appellants are illiterate and belong to very poor strata of the society. The deceased at the time of the accident was only 41 years of age and has left two minor children besides old parents. The Court said that the “Appellants have sufficiently explained the delay in approaching this Court within the stipulated time and explained the delay. Furthermore, the statute is a beneficial legislation and just a fair compensation has to be awarded. As noticed above, the tribunal has ex-facie committed an error in assessment of compensation by not taking into account the correct notified minimum wage or the judgment of the Supreme Court.”
HC held:
The HC in view of the above, allowed the appeal. The HC held that “The case shall be listed before the concerned Tribunal on 12.01.2022 for the purposes of re-computing the compensation. On re-computation of the compensation, the insurance companies, shall deposit their proportionate share with the tribunal within four weeks. On the deposit of the same, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants as per the scheme of disbursal.” The HC held that “the delay in filing the appeal and re-filing the appeal deserves to be condoned. The applications are accordingly allowed and the delay is condoned.”
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Case Title: Maya Devi & Ors. v. Shahnawaz & Ors.
Case Details: MAC.APP. 83/2021
Picture Source :
