Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Vaidya Nath Chaupal & Another
2011 Latest Caselaw 4173 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Date of Judgment: 26.08.2011

+      MAC APPEAL No. 764/2011 & CM Nos.15910-12/2011

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
                                       ...........Appellant
                  Through: Ms. Rameeza Hakeem,
                           Advocate.

                  Versus

VAIDYA NATH CHAUPAL & ANOTHER
                                                ..........Respondents
                         Through:   Nemo

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 This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. The

only grievance is that minimum wages had been taken into

account upon which 50% has been added which is against the

principle applicable; attention has been drawn to a judgment of

the Division Bench of this Court reported in Delhi Transport

Corporation & Another Vs. Kumari Lalita ILR (1982) II Delhi as

also a judgment of the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High

Court reported in Lachhman Singh & others Vs. Gurmit Kaur &

Others AIR 1979 P &H 50. It is pointed out that in the judgment of

Kumari Lalita (Supra) a Bench of this Court had noted that the

factor of future inflation cannot be taken into account in the

estimate of damages as this will introduce speculation and

uncertainty in the estimate. This judgment was of the year 1982.

2 The consistent view of the coordinate Benches of this Court

has been that keeping in view the price rise and index inflation

which is not akin to future prospects, judicial notice is taken of the

fact that in the next 10 years because of price rise and index

inflation minimum wages are bound to increase by 50%. This has

been held in a catena of judgments of this Court reported in 2008

ACJ 2182 (Delhi) Kanwar Devi Vs. Bansal Roadways, 2007 ACJ

2165 (Delhi) Lekhraj Vs. Suram Singh and 2009 ACJ 1921 (Delhi)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Renu Devi.

3 Minimum wages have admittedly increased over the period

of time; in the judgment of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.

Budhi Ram & Others 2008 (100) DRJ 607, this Court had noted

that in the preceding 10 years, there is almost 225% increase in

these wages; in the year 1980 wages for a skilled worker was

`320/- per month; 10 years later i.e. in the year 1990 the minimum

wages were computed at `1,043/- per month; this increase is not

akin to future prospects; this increase in the wages is a bare

minimum and is determined by the Government after taking into

account the price index, cost of living, inflation and denunciation

of currency value; it is a cost neutralizing factor. The factor of

uncertainty and speculation which had weighed in the mind of the

Division Bench is ruled out as the minimum wages are taken as

notified in the Schedule of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948; in the

judgment of Division Bench, this question had even otherwise not

come up for consideration; scientific data available under the

Minimum Wages Act on the basis of which the judgments of

Kanwar Devi , Lekhraj and Renu Devi (Supra) had been passed

was not available; the consideration on account of uncertainty in

estimate and speculation is thus inapplicable. Appeal has been

assailed only on the aforenoted ground.

4     Appeal has no merit. Dismissed.




                                          INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 26, 2011
a