Delhi High Court
Smt. Meena Khanna & Ors. vs Ram Niwas & Ors. on 5 August, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 05.08.2011
+ MAC. APP. 723/2010
Smt. Meena Khanna & Ors. ...........Appellants
Through: Mr. Jitinder Kumar , Advocate.
Versus
Ram Niwas & Ors. ..........Respondents
Through: Ms.Shantha Devi Raman
Advocate for Respondent No.
3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. The award impugned is dated 19.07.2010 vide which
compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,51,100/- had been awarded in
favour of the claimant. There is no dispute that the deceased
aged about 58 years, namely, Hari Kishan, had died on
16.06.2007. Since his salary could not be proved, the minimum
wages drawn on the relevant date were taken into account which
was Rs. 3470/- on the date of the accident. The counsel for the
appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Award under the head of
"loss of dependency" which is Rs. 2,81,000/-. His contention is
that the minimum wages would have doubled in the next 10 years
but this aspect of price rise and index inflation has not been
considered by the Tribunal. The Award under this head calls
interference. The counsel for the appellant has placed reliance
upon a judgment of this Court which is reported, "I (2010) ACC
120 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jagpati & Ors." wherein
similar facts where the deceased was aged 58 years minimum
wages had been considered and keeping in view the cateena of
judgments of this Court reported in "Kanwar Devi Vs. Bansal
Roadways, I (2009) ACC 583", "Lekh Raj Vs. Suram Singh, II
(2007) ACC 107" and "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Renu Devi,
III (2008) ACC 134," the fact of minimum wages getting doubled
over a period of 10 years because of inflation and rise in price
index, judicial notice had been taken of this factum and 50% had
been added to the minimum wages which was drawn by the
deceased.
2. The ratio of this judgment would be fully applicable to the
instant facts. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the
appellant to dislodge this argument by relying upon the judgments
of the Apex Court reported in "2011 SCC PS Somanathan & Ors.
Vs. District Insurance Officers & Anr." , "2008 (3) SCC (Cri) 95
Rajesh Kumar @ Raju Vs. Yudhvir Singh & Anr.", "2007 ACJ 515
UP State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sarita Tyagi & Ors.",
and "2009 (13) SCC 656 Raj Rani & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. & Ors." is mis-placed. They were all on other distinct
propositions.
3. The Award under the head of "loss of dependency" would
accordingly now read as under:
3470 X 1735 (50%)
= 5205 - one quarter (expenses) = to 1301
= 3904 X 12 X 9
= Rs. 4,21,632/-
4. The modified amount under the head of "loss of
dependency" would be Rs. 4,21,632/-. No other ground has been
urged. Appeal is disposed of in terms of the above.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 5, 2011
Rs
