Smt. Santra & Anr. vs Yatinder Kumar & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 6322 Del

$~23
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                  Date of decision: 22nd December, 2011

+      MAC.APP. NO.1160/2011

       SMT SANTRA & ANR                            ..... Appellants
                    Through             Mr. Manish Maini, Advocate

                       versus


       YATINDER KUMAR & ORS                         ..... Respondents
                   Through  None

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

                                JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation for the death of Rahul who was aged 19 years on the date of the accident which took place on 11.05.2009. The Tribunal by impugned order awarded a total compensation of ` 5,65,768/-.

2. During inquiry before the Tribunal, the Appellants produced a salary certificate which shows that that the deceased was getting a salary of ` 10,000/- per month. The said certificate was rightly disbelieved by the Tribunal in the absence of any other documentary evidence of the deceased's employment. The Tribunal took the minimum wages of an unskilled worker i.e. `

3934/- per month, added 50% on the basis of judgment of this Court in Kumari Chunni V. Balwant and Others, II (2010) ACC 156, deducted 50% towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 14 according to the age of Appellant No.1 i.e. the deceased's mother and computed loss of dependency as ` 4,95,768/-. Apart from this, the Tribunal was benevolent in granting a compensation of ` 50,000/- towards loss of love and affection.

3. It is urged that the minimum wages of a matriculate ought to have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal for calculating the loss of dependency. There was no evidence by the Appellant before the Tribunal that the deceased was carrying on some clerical or supervisory job.

4. In the circumstances, the Tribunal rightly took the minimum wages of an unskilled worker. The overall compensation of ` 5,65,768/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. There is no ground to interfere in the impugn order.

5. The Appeal is devoid of merit; the same is accordingly dismissed.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE DECEMBER 22, 2011 pst