Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Nagendra Roy & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 507 Del

                            UNREPORTED
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+            MAC. APP. 303/2010 and CM No.8505/2010


ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
CO. LTD.                            ..... Appellant
                  Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate

             versus

NAGENDRA ROY & ORS.                          ..... Respondents
                Through:              Ms. Seema Kumari, Advocate


%                 Date of Decision : January 28, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
   to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

                         J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

Admit.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final

hearing.

3. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 173

of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 08.02.2010

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dwarka Courts, New

Delhi in Claim Petition No.924/2008 titled as "Shri Nagendra Roy &

Ors. vs. Shri Darshan Lal & Ors.".

4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the claim petition are that

one Smt. Shanti Devi died in a motor accident on 04.08.2004 while

crossing the road. She was survived by the respondents No.1, 2 and

3, being her husband and two children, who filed a claim pletition

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking

compensation for her untimely demise. The petitioners (the

respondents No.1 to 3 herein) have claimed in the claim petition that

the deceased Smt. Shanti Devi was doing the job of a helper in a

private company wherefrom she was getting a salary of ` 4,500/- per

month and as such have prayed for an award in the sum of ` 22 lakhs.

5. The learned Claims Tribunal after accepting the allegation of

the respondents No.1 to 3 that the deceased died on account of

injuries sustained by her as a result of the rash and negligent driving

of the respondent No.4 - the driver of the car owned by the

respondent No.5, held the Insurance Company (the appellant herein)

liable to pay a sum of ` 6,27,000/- to the respondents No.1 to 3 along

with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the filing of

the petition till the realisation of the said amount.

6. I find from the record that it is not in dispute that the deceased

Shanti Devi @ Sunita was working as a helper in a private company.

As there was no documentary evidence with respect to the income of

the deceased on record, for the purpose of calculation of loss of

dependency, the learned Tribunal took into account the minimum

wages prevailing on the date of the accident for an unskilled person,

which were in the sum of ` 2894.90 per month, which it rounded off

to ` 2,900/- per month. The learned Tribunal thereafter proceeded to

add 50% to the minimum wages of the deceased and thus arrived at

the figure of ` 4,350/-. Deducting 1/3rd therefrom, the yearly loss of

dependency of the claimants was assessed by the Tribunal to be in the

sum of ` 34,800/-. To augment this multiplicand, the multiplier of 15

was applied in view of the fact that the deceased was 35 years of age

at the time of her death. The total loss of dependency was thus

computed to be in the sum of ` 5,22,000/-, to which a sum of `

75,000/- was added for loss of love and affection and ` 10,000/- each

towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss to the estate of

the deceased.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellant has preferred

the present appeal in which the award has been sought to be assailed

on three grounds:

(i) The learned Claims Tribunal while taking the income of

the deceased on the basis of the minimum wages

applicable on the date of the accident to an unskilled

workman ought not to have assessed the gross monthly

income of the deceased to be in the sum of ` 4,350/-.

(ii) The learned Claims Tribunal erred in granting ` 75,000/-

(` 25,000/- per petitioner) towards love and affection,

which is on the higher side.

(iii) The learned Claims Tribunal ought not to have awarded

interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the award

amount, and instead should have awarded interest at the

rate of 6% or at the most at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

8. To counter the aforesaid grounds urged by Ms. Suman Bagga,

the learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Seema Kumari, the learned

counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 sought to support the award by

relying upon the reasoning given in the award and the judicial

precedents cited therein.

9. There is no manner of doubt that it has been settled by a long

line of decisions rendered by different Benches of this Court that the

Court should take judicial notice of the increase in minimum wages to

meet the increase in the price index and inflation rate. This Court has

consistently taken the view that minimum wages get doubled over a

period of 10 years and this is not a fact which can be brushed aside

while computing the loss of dependency of the legal representatives

of the deceased in a motor vehicular accident. It has also been

highlighted in a number of decisions of this Court that the Court's

taking into account the increase in minimum wages is not akin to

taking into account the future prospects of the deceased in his chosen

job or vocation. The following, amongst others, are the decisions of

this Court taking the aforesaid view:

(i) Kanwar Devi vs. Bansal Roadways, 2008 ACJ 2182,

(ii) National Insurance Company Limited vs. Renu Devi,

III (2008) ACC 134,

(iii) UPSRTC vs. Munni Devi, MAC. APP. No. 310/2007

decided on 28/07/2008, IV (2009) ACC 879,

(iv) Shanti Devi and Ors. vs. Ghasiya Khachhap and Ors.,

ILR (2010) Delhi 412,

(v) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sujata & Ors., MAC.

APP. No.19/2011 decided on January 21, 2011

(vi) Jitender Kumar vs. Virender Singh, II (2010) ACC 322

and

(vii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kailash Devi, II (2008)

ACC 770.

10. When confronted with the aforesaid judicial pronouncements,

no judgment to the contrary could be cited by the learned counsel for

the appellant nor any cogent reason given as to why this Bench

should differ with the consistent view taken by different Benches of

this Court that judicial notice of increase in the minimum wages to

meet the increase in price index and inflation rates should be taken

note of when the compensation payable to the victim or his legal

representatives is being computed on the basis of minimum wages.

11. In the instant case, the deceased was 35 years of age when she

met with the unfortunate accident on 4th August, 2004 and thus by 4th

August, 2014, i.e., within the span of 10 years, the minimum wages of

the deceased would have doubled. The learned Tribunal has applied

the multiplier of 15, in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme

Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

& Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and the choice of this multiplier has not

been faulted by the Appellant. Thus,taking judicial notice of the fact

that in 15 years the income of the deceased would be two and a half

times of the minimum wage rate in the year 2004 it can safely be

presumed that the income of the deceased would have risen to

` 8,700/- p.m.. In the instant case, however, the average annual

income of the deceased has been assessed to be in the sum of `

4,350/- per month by taking only a 50% increase to beat the inflation

rate and the rise in the price index. I, therefore, see no cogent reason

to disagree with the findings of the learned Tribunal in this regard.

12. Adverting to the second ground urged by the appellant, I am

inclined to agree with the appellant that the sum of ` 75,000/-

awarded towards loss of love and affection is on the higher side and

accordingly, relying upon the decision rendered in Baby Radhika

Gupta and Ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2010 ACJ

758, wherein the Supreme Court upheld awarding of ` 25,000/-

towards loss of love and affection, this figure is scaled down to `

25,000/-. After adding the non-pecuniary damages awarded by the

Tribunal towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral

expenses, the respondents No.1 to 3 are accordingly held entitled to

receive a total compensation of ` 5,77,000/-.

13. As regards the third contention of the appellant that the interest

awarded is on the higher side, being at the rate of 9% per annum from

the date of the institution of the petition till the date of realization, I

find substance in this contention as well. Accordingly, the rate of

interest is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of the institution

of the petition till the date of realization.

14. With the aforesaid modifications in the award dated

08.02.2010, the appeal stands disposed of. CM No.8505/2010 also

stands disposed of.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) January 28, 2011 km