Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Smt. Varisha & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 6029 Del

$~20
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   Date of decision: 9th December, 2011
+       MAC APP. 940/2011

        ICICI LOMBARD
        GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.          ..... Appellants
                  Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdedva, Adv.

                                 Versus

        SMT. VARISHA & ORS.                            ..... Respondents
                 Through: None.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                            JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

impugns the order dated 30.08.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) whereby a compensation of ` 9,67,400/- was awarded in respect of death of Naim Khan, who was aged 40 years at the time of accident. The grant of compensation is challenged on the ground that the Tribunal erred in granting 50% increase in the minimum wages to meet inflation. It is urged that the compensation awarded towards loss of estate and loss of consortium was excessive.

2. During inquiry before the Tribunal it was sought to be proved by Respondents No.1 to 4 that the deceased was running an Electrical shop and was earning ` 7,000/- per month. The Tribunal reasoned that there was no documentary evidence with regard to the ownership of the shop or the proof of the deceased's income. In the circumstances, the Tribunal took the minimum wages of a skilled worker, added 50% on the basis of the ratio in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kailash Devi, II (2008) ACC 770 and computed the dependency.

3. Para 15 and 16 of the impugned order are extracted hereunder: -

"15. As regards to quantum of compensation the PW1 had stated that the deceased was working as a electrician and had his own business and he was owned a shop and was earning ` 7,000/- per month. In her cross-examination she stated that the deceased was not an income tax payee and she had not placed on record documents of the ownership of the shop. Thus as no proof of income of deceased was filed. The income of the deceased has to be assessed on the basis of Minimum Wages Act for a skilled worker as PW1 proved Wireman's licence granted to him as Ex. PW1/2. The Minimum Wages for a skilled worker on the date of accident was ` 4,377/- (rounded of ` 4,380/-). Though PW1 stated that income of deceased would have increased in future, no evidence was led to prove increase in monetary income due to advancement in career as such no amount is to be added towards future prospects.

16. However, as income of deceased has been assessed on the basis of Minimum Wages Act. The

increase in wages under Minimum Wages Act on inflation trends are to be considered as held in II (2008) ACC 770, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kailash Devi as follows: -

"The Tribunal has thus wrongly assessed the income of the deceased by applying the criteria laid down in Sarla Dixit's case (Supra). The income of the deceased in the present case has been assessed at ` 3100/- P.M. as per the Minimum Wages Act. As the respondents claimants failed to prove the claimed income of ` 4500/- per month by producing any cogent evidence on record and once the resort has been made to the Minimum Wages Act, therefore, the increase in the future wages under the Minimum Wages Act can certainly be taken into consideration. This court has already taken into consideration. This court has already taken a view that the increase under the Minimum Wage Act is based on the price index, inflation rate and other economic factors can not be treated at par wit the future income of a victim due to promotions, advancements in career, grant of increments and special grades, etc. Perusal of the Minimum Wages Act shows that in the past within a period of 10 years, the minimum wages almost get more than double; for instance, the minimum wages for a skilled workman in the year 1980 were ` 320/- and the same got increased to ` 1043/- in the year 1990, meaning thereby that there has been an increase of 225% from the year 1980-*1990, therefore, it can be safely assumed that the income of the deceased would have doubled in the next 10 years. Applying the same criteria, the income of the

deceased as assessed in the year 2001 would have been increased to ` 6200/- and taking the average of the same it would come to ` 4650/- per month."

4. 50% increase in minimum wages in case of young persons was given by this Court in UPSRTC v. Munni Devi, IV (2009) ACC 879; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Renu Devi & Ors., III (2008) ACC 134 and Narinder Bishal & Anr. v. Rambir Singh & Ors., MAC APP. 1007-08/2006 decided by this Court on 20th February, 2008. The minimum wages are revised from time to time not only to meet the inflation but also to give benefit of growth in GDP and to provide a better standard of living to the lowest paid worker in the country. The Tribunal's reasoning to give the increase of 50% in the circumstances, cannot be faulted.

5. In Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 it was held that a notional income of ` 5000/- to ` 10,000/- each should be awarded towards loss of estate and loss of consortium. In this case the Tribunal awarded ` 20,000/- each which is on the higher side but considering that the loss of dependency itself was ` 8,87,400/- the overall compensation of ` 9,67,400/- assessed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. The impugned award does not call for any interference.

6. The appeal is devoid of any merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. The amount of compensation deposited shall be

released in terms of the Tribunal's order. The statutory amount of ` 25,000/-, if deposited by the Appellant shall be released.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE DECEMBER 9, 2011 hs