Delhi High Court
Geeta & Ors. vs Ram Kishan & Ors. on 19 December, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 13th December, 2011
Pronounced on: 19th December, 2011
+ MAC APP. No.837/2010
GEETA & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Advocate
Versus
RAM KISHAN & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Tripathi, Advocate for
Respondent No.3/United India
Insurance Co. Ltd.
+ MAC APP. No.740/2010
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Tripathi, Advocate
Versus
GEETA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. These are two Cross-Appeals; MAC APP No.837/2010 has
been filed by the claimants, who say that the amount of
compensation of `10,91,000/- is too meager as future prospects
of the deceased were not considered, whereas in MAC APP
No.740/2010 filed by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., it is
stated that the Tribunal fell into error in relying upon the salary
certificate Ex.PW2/2 and calculating dependency thereon.
2. Since the Insurance Company has not challenged the factum of
accident and the rashness/negligence on the part of the driver,
my task is easier. The question for determination in these two
Appeals is whether the salary certificate Ex.PW2/2 was reliable
or not. By the impugned award, the Tribunal believed the
salary certificate Ex.PW2/2, considering the number of
dependents to be four, deducted 1/4th towards personal living
expenses of the deceased and applied the multiplier of "14" as
per the age of the deceased (43 years) to arrive at the loss of
dependency as `10,71,000/-.
3. In order to prove the deceased's income, the claimants
examined PW2 Pradeep Gupta. He deposed as under:
"My friend Naveen was also working with me as
Field Executive and his last drawn salary was
`8500/- p.m. But I have not brought the books of
accounts on which basis of which I have issued this
certificate today. The certificate is Ex.PW2/2 bears
the signatures of my accountant Kaushal Kishore at
point A. (Objected to made of proof)."
4. In cross-examination, PW2 deposed that there was no skilled
worker working with him. Ex.PW2/2 was prepared by his
accountant in his presence, but he could not give the date when
it was prepared. He testified that he did not maintain the salary
account of each of the employee. He stated that he had not filed
any return in the name of R.D. Trading Co. on whose name the
certificate Ex.PW2/2 was issued. Rather, the Income Tax
Returns were filed by him in his individual name. He admitted
that he could not produce any document except the certificate to
show that the deceased Naveen was working with the R.D.
Trading Co. He also admitted that the Ex.PW2/2 was issued at
the instance of Naveen's wife. It is important to note that PW2
claimed himself to be travelling with the deceased, although on
a different two-wheeler scooter. He further produced himself as
a friend of the deceased and also his employer. All these things
taken together raise some suspicion which are further
compounded by the fact that there was no documentary
evidence whatsoever to show that the deceased had ever worked
with PW2, either in the shape of attendance register, salary
register or books of account. So much so, that even the Income
Tax Returns in the name of R.D. Trading Co. was never filed by
PW2 on whose behalf salary certificate Ex.PW2/2 is issued. In
this view of the matter, the salary certificate Ex.PW2/2 is not
free from doubt and in the absence of any other documentary
evidence as proof of deceased's employment with R.D. Trading
Co., the same ought not to have been considered as a proof of
income by the Tribunal.
5. There is no evidence with regard to the educational qualification
of the deceased. Having rejected the salary certificate
Ex.PW2/2, the dependency can be calculated on the basis of the
Notification issued by the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi
fixing the minimum wages in scheduled employments. The
minimum wages are revised from time to time to offset inflation
as also to provide the better standard of living and to give the
benefit and of the growth of G.D.P. to the lowest paid workers.
Perusal of the Notifications issued by the Government of N.C.T.
of Delhi shows that the minimum wages as on 01.06.2008 were
`3633/-. Just within one year and 08 months, the minimum
wages of unskilled worker were revised to `5278/- per month
which shows an increase of 45%. This Court in (i) UPSRTC v.
Munni Devi, IV (2009) ACC 879; (ii) National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Renu Devi & Ors., III (2008) ACC 134; and
(iii) Narinder Bishal & Anr. v. Rambir Singh & Ors. MAC
APP. 1007-08/2006 decided on 20th February, 2008, made
addition of 50% in the minimum wages taken for calculation for
loss of dependency. Considering that the deceased was 43
years, I would restrict this benefit to only 30%. The loss of
dependency thus works out as 3633+30% X 12=56676 - 1/4 X
14= `5,95,098/-. The Tribunal awarded further a sum of
`10,000/- on account of funeral expenses and `10,000/- on
account of loss of consortium. Since the deceased left behind
three minor children, some provision ought to have been made
for loss of love and affection. Thus, I award a sum of `25,000/-
towards love and affection and `10,000/- towards loss of estate.
6. The revised compensation works out as ` 6,50,098/-. The
Tribunal granted interest @ 8% per annum. The Supreme Court
in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009)
6 SCC 121 had granted interest @ 7.5% per annum. In the
circumstances of the case, I would not interfere with the award
of interest.
7. 50% of the compensation was ordered to be released by the
order of this Court dated 31.03.2011. Rest of the compensation
payable to the Appellants (Claimants) shall be released/
deposited in an FDR in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch in
the same proportion as ordered by the Tribunal. The excess
amount along with accrued interest thereon shall be
immediately refunded to the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Appellant in Cross-Appeal No.740/2010.
8. In above terms MAC APP.837/2010 filed by the Claimants is
dismissed and MAC APP.740/2010 filed by the Insurance
Company is allowed. No costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 19, 2011
pst
