Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Savitri & Ors. on 19 December, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 05th December, 2011
Pronounced on: 19th December, 2011
+ MAC APP. No.351/2011
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate with
Mr. M.K. Tiwari, Advocate
Versus
SAVITRI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for
Respondents No.1 to 6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appeal impugns an award dated 18.10.2010 on the
quantum of compensation on twin grounds i.e. the Tribunal
ought not to have granted future prospects in the absence of any
evidence and that the deduction of one-fourth towards the
personal expenses should have been made considering that the
number of dependents are six.
2. Respondent No.1 Savitri entered the witness box as PW-1 and
deposed that her husband was a Graduate from Delhi
University. He was working as a courier boy with M/s. Cosmos
Worldwide Express. He was getting a total salary of ` 4,000/-
i.e. 2,500/- towards his salary and ` 1,500/- towards overtime
and conveyance. The Tribunal did not rely on the certificate in
the absence of any proof through the examination of the
relevant witness from the employer. It took the minimum wages
of an unskilled worker which were equivalent to his salary
without the overtime and conveyance allowance, added 50%
towards future prospects and computed the loss of dependency
as ` 6,75,000/- by applying the multiplier of "15" relevant to the
deceased's age.
3. Evidently, the Tribunal erred in granting future prospects in the
absence of any evidence that the deceased was in a stable
employment or was in a permanent job earning increments from
time to time. At the same time, it is important to note that the
salary of the deceased taken by the Tribunal was a little less
than the minimum wages. The minimum wages are revised
from time to time to offset inflation as also to provide a better
standard of living and to give the benefit of the growth of
G.D.P. to the lowest paid workers. The Appellant is justified in
his plea that 1/4th of the deceased's income should have been
taken towards deceased's personal expenses considering his
large family. The Tribunal erred in not taking any amount
towards the personal living expenses of the deceased.
4. Making a deduction of 1/4th of the income towards the
deceased's personal expenditure, the dependency works out as
3750 X 3/4=2812.5 X12 X15= ` 5,06,250/-. Adding the
conventional sum towards non-pecuniary expenses as granted
by the Tribunal, the overall compensation works out as `
5,61,250/-. After deducting the amount of interim
compensation, if paid, the amount awarded by this Court shall
be apportioned in the manner as suggested by the Tribunal. The
balance amount along with the interest earned on that amount
shall be refunded to the Appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd.
5. The Appeal is allowed in above terms. No costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 19, 2011
pst
