Saroja &Ors. vs Shahid &Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 3451 Del

36
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                         +       MAC.APP.328/2004

%                                    Date of decision: 31st August, 2009


      SAROJA &ORS.                        ..... Appellants
                             Through : Mr. Aruna Mehta and
                                       Ms. Sanjeev Mehta, Advs.

                       versus

      SHAHID &ORS.                        ..... Respondents
                             Through : Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Adv.
                                       for R-3.


CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may                  YES
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?                 YES

3.      Whether the judgment should be                         YES
        reported in the Digest?

                                JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The appellants have challenged the award of the learned

Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.2,81,000/- has been

awarded to the appellants. The appellants seek the

enhancement of the award amount.

2. The accident dated 26th April, 1999 resulted in the death of

Dev Raj. The deceased was survived by his widow, one minor

son and one minor daughter who filed the claim petition before

the learned Tribunal.

3. The deceased was aged 35 years at the time of the accident

and was working as Mason earning Rs.4,000/- per month.

However, in the absence of any documentary evidence of

income, the learned Tribunal took the minimum wages of

Rs.2,350/- and deducted Rs.980/- towards personal expenses of

the deceased and applied the multiplier of 16 to compute the loss

of dependency at Rs.2,63,040/-. Rs.10,000/- has been added

towards loss of expectation of life, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral

expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. The total

compensation awarded is Rs.2,81,000/-.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged the

following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-

(i) The deceased was a mason and, therefore, the

minimum wages of Rs.2,772/- for a skilled worker

should be taken into consideration to compute the

compensation.

      (ii)    The increase in minimum wages due to inflation and

              increase   in    price   index   be   also   taken    into

              consideration.

(iii) The compensation be awarded for loss of love and

affection and loss of consortium.

5. Appellant No.1 appeared in the witness box as PW-4 and

deposed that the deceased was working as a mason earning

Rs.180/- per day/Rs.4,000/- per month. PW-4 further deposed

that sometimes he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month including

overtime. PW-4 further deposed that the deceased was working

with Kalidas and prior to that he was working on daily wages and

he was a very good mason. Kalidas appeared as PW-2 and

deposed that the deceased was a very expert mason and he was

paying Rs.180/- per day and in month, he used to pay Rs.4,000/-

to the deceased. PW-3 is a colleague of the deceased who

deposed that he was also working on daily wages earning

Rs.180/- per day. He deposed that the deceased was a very

expert mason and his income was not less than Rs.4,000/- per

month. All the aforesaid witnesses in cross-examination deposed

that they do not have any document to prove the occupation and

income of the deceased.

6. The learned Tribunal disregarded the statement of PW-2,

PW-3 and PW-4 and held that the deceased was working only as a

labourer and the minimum wages of Rs.2,348/- for an unskilled

worker were taken into consideration to compute the

compensation. The finding of the learned Tribunal is correct to

the extent that the income of the deceased has not been proved.

However, there is sufficient evidence on record that the deceased

was an expert mason. Mason is a skilled worker according to the

Schedule under the Minimum Wages Act and in that view of the

matter, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the minimum

wages in respect of a skilled worker. The minimum wages for a

skilled worker as on the date of the accident were Rs.2,772/- per

month. The income of the deceased is, therefore, taken to be

Rs.2,772/- per month according to the schedule of the Minimum

Wages Act for a skilled worker.

7. The learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the

increase in minimum wages due to inflation and increase in price

index. It is well settled by catena of judgments, namely, Kanwar

Devi vs. Bansal Roadways, 2008 ACJ 2182, Lekh Raj vs

Suram Singh, 2007 ACJ 2165, National Insurance Company

Limited vs. Renu Devi III (2008) ACC 134 and UPSRC vs.

Munni Devi, MAC.APP.No.310/2007 decided on 28.07.2008 that

the minimum wages gets doubled over a period of 10 years due

to inflation and increase in price index and, therefore, the judicial

notice be taken of the increase in minimum wages by taking

average of the minimum wages and its double. Following the

aforesaid judgments, the income of the deceased is taken to be

Rs.4,158/- [(Rs.2,772 + Rs.5,544)/2].

8. According to the appellants, the age of the deceased at the

time of the accident was 35 years. The appellants rely on the

post-mortem report in which the age of the deceased has been

mentioned as 35 years. However, in the original information slip

given by the cremation ground, the age of the deceased has

been mentioned as 40 years. The appellants have also placed on

record the ration card in which the age of the deceased has been

mentioned as 35 years. However, there is overwriting on the

ration card and it is clearly legible that the age of the deceased in

the ration card was mentioned as 45 years which was

interpolated and overwritten to make it 35 years. The ration card

is a more authentic document as compared to the other

documents on record and the age of the deceased is taken to be

45 years according to the ration card. The appropriate multiplier

according to the age of 45 years is 14 and, therefore, the

multiplier is reduced from 16 to 14.

9. Taking the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,158/-,

deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased

and applying the multiplier of 14, the loss of dependency of the

appellants is computed to be Rs.5,23,908/- (Rs.4,158 x 3/4 x 14 x

12). The learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for

loss of love and affection and loss of consortium. However,

Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of expectation of life which is

not a permissible head. The compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards

loss of expectation of life is treated as loss of love and affection.

Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium and the total

compensation is computed to be Rs.5,51,408/- (Rs.5,23,908 +

Rs.10,000 + Rs.5,000 + Rs.2,500 + Rs.10,000).

10. The appeal is allowed and the award amount is enhanced

from Rs.2,81,000/- to Rs.5,51,408/-. The learned Tribunal has

awarded interest @9% per annum which is not disturbed on the

original award amount of Rs.2,81,000/-. The rate of interest on

the enhanced award amount shall be 7.5% per annum from the

date of filing of the petition till realization.

11. The enhanced award amount along with interest be

deposited by respondent No.3 with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court

Branch within 30 days. The deposit be made by means of an

account payee cheque drawn in the name of UCO Bank A/c Smt.

Saroja and be handed over to Mr. M.M. Tandon, Member-Retail

Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi (Mobile

No.09310356400).

12. The order with respect to mode and manner of

disbursement of award amount shall be passed on the next date

of hearing after examining the appellants with respect to their

financial condition and financial needs. The appellants are

directed to remain present in the Court on the next date of

hearing.

13. List for directions on 22nd October, 2009.

14. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel for the

parties under the signature of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J

AUGUST 31, 2009 aj