Delhi High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Gita Devi & Ors. on 14 December, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on:28th November, 2011
Pronounced on:14th December, 2011
+ MAC APP. 105/2011
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rameeza Hakeem, Adv.
Versus
GITA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv. for
Respondents No.1 to 6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appellant Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
impugns the award dated 13.12.2010 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal on the ground that the compensation
granted is excessive and arbitrary.
2. This case relates to the death of one Joginder @ Yogender
Singh, who was aged 29 years (as per matriculation certificate
and Voter ID card) at the time of the accident, which took place
on 16.01.2010. The deceased was survived by a widow, three
children and his parents. In the claim petition filed before the
Tribunal Respondents No.1 to 6 claimed that the deceased was a
self-employed person working as a Painter, had passed 12th
standard and was earning ` 12,000/- per month. The
Respondent placed on record a vendor certificate Ex. PW-1/3
under the national policy for street vendors to prove that he was
running a stall (as a Painter). The accident took place while the
deceased was painting a number plate on a car. The Tribunal
took the deceased's minimum wages to be ` 6,448/-, added 50%
towards increase in minimum wages, deducted 1/4th towards
personal expenses (as per the number of dependants) and
applied the multiplier of '17' to compute the dependency as `
14,68,800/-. After adding compensation towards loss of estate,
funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, overall
compensation of ` 16,33,800/- was awarded by the Tribunal.
3. The contentions raised on Appellant's behalf are: -
(i) There was contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased;
(ii) Minimum wages for a skilled worker/ matriculate were
wrongly taken as ` 6,448/- instead of ` 4,401/-.
(iii) Increase of 50% was wrongly given in respect of the
minimum wages.
CONTENTION NO.(i)
4. In order to prove culpable negligence on the part of Respondent
No.7, Respondents No.1 to 6 examined PW-2 Satinder Singh,
who deposed that on 16.01.2001 at about 1:45 P.M. he along
with the deceased was writing number on the number plate of
vehicle No.DL-4CAD-3276. A Santro car No.DL-8CNA-0910
being driven rashly and negligently came from the side of G-
Block, Vikaspuri and crushed the deceased under the wheel of
the driver side. Although, a plea of contributory negligence was
raised before the Tribunal yet nothing was pleaded in the
written statement filed by the Appellant nor anything was
brought out in PW-2's cross-examination to show that the
deceased was negligent. Respondent No.7 the driver of the
Santro car remained ex-parte. The Insurance Co. also failed to
produce the driver to rebut PW-2's testimony. In the
circumstances, the Tribunal's finding attributing negligence on
Respondent No.7's part cannot be faulted.
CONTENTIONS No.(ii) & (iii)
5. The Respondent's claimed the deceased's monthly income to be
` 12,000/-. No document was placed on record to prove the
deceased's income. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in
taking minimum wages of a matriculate/ skilled worker to
compute the dependency. The minimum wages of a skilled
worker or a matriculate were ` 4,377/- and ` 4,401/-
respectively on 16.01.2010. The same were revised to ` 6,448/-
w. e. f. 01.02.2010 i.e. just after 15 days of the accident. The
Tribunal fell into error in taking the minimum wages on the date
of the accident as ` 6,448/-. There could have been 50%
addition in calculating the dependency in view of the judgments
of this Court as held 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.
6. The fact that the minimum wages were increased by almost
45% w. e. f. 01.02.2010 to the previous wages shows that the
minimum wages are increased not only to offset inflation but
also to provide better standard of living to the lowest paid
workers in the country.
7. The compensation of ` 1,50,000/- awarded towards love and
affection is on the higher side. The trend of the High Courts
and the Supreme Court is to award a nominal sum under the
head of loss of love and affection when the loss of dependency
is fully taken care of as held in the latest judgment of the
Supreme Court in K. R. Madhusudan & Ors. v. The
Administrative Officer & Anr., (2011) 4 SCC 689 where a sum
of ` 25,000/- was awarded towards loss of love and affection.
The revised compensation works out as under: -
Sl. Head of Compensation Compensation granted by
No. the High Court
1. Loss of dependency ` 10,09,800/-
Loss of estate
2. ` 10,000/-
(as awarded by the Tribunal)
Funeral expenses
3. ` 5,000/-
(as awarded by the Tribunal)
4. Loss of love and affection ` 25,000/-
Total ` 10,49,800/-
8. Apportionment of compensation: -
Sl. Respondent/ Name of Total amount Amount to be
No. the Person to be released in
disbursed cash
1. Respondent No.2, ` 1,50,000/-
Priyanka Kumari each
Respondent No.3, (along with
Deepak proportionate
interest)
Respondent No.4, Pinki
Respondent No.5, ` 50,000/-
2. ` 50,000/-
Devdhari Singh (along with
proportionate
interest)
Respondent No.6, ` 1,50,000/-
3. ` 50,000/-
Devrajo Devi (along with
proportionate
interest)
4. Respondent No.1, ` 3,99,800/- ` 1,00,000/-
Gita Devi (along with
proportionate
interest)
9. The amount payable to Respondents No.2 to 4 shall be held in
Fixed Deposit till they attain the age of 21 years. After
disbursing a cash of ` 1,00,000/- to Respondent No.1 Geeta
Devi, rest of the amount payable to Respondent No.1 Geeta
Devi shall be held in Fixed Deposit for a period of 5 years.
After disbursing a cash of ` 50,000/- to Respondent No.6
Devrajo Devi, rest of the amount i.e. ` 1,00,000/- shall be held
in Fixed Deposit for a period of 3 years. The entire amount of `
50,000/- along with proportionate interest payable to
Respondent No.5 shall be released to him forthwith. The
amount to be held in Fixed Deposit shall be held in UCO Bank,
Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi.
10. The appeal is allowed in above terms.
A copy of this order be communicated to UCO Bank, Delhi
High Court Branch, New Delhi.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 14, 2011
hs
