The New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs Rajni Devi & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 2582 Del

                                      UNREPORTED
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  MAC. APP. 9/2011


THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD        ..... Appellant
                  Through: Mr. K.L.Nandwani, Advocate.

                   versus

RAJNI DEVI & ORS                                   ..... Respondents
                            Through:   Mr. S.N.Parashar, Advocate for
                                       the respondents No.1 to 4.


%                           Date of Decision : May 13, 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?

                            ORDER (ORAL)

: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated

18.10.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

awarding a sum of ` 7,68,260/- to the respondents No.1 to 4 on a

Claim Petition filed by them for compensation under Section 166 read

with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. The brief facts relevant for the decision of the present appeal

are that on 18.07.2007, one Shri Ram Niwas (hereinafter referred to

as "the deceased") was sitting behind a stationary dumper, while the

driver of the dumper was changing the tyre of the same. The alleged

offending vehicle, being tempo bearing No. HR-69A-0414, driven

rashly and negligently and at a fast speed, came from Haryana side

towards GTK Road, Alipur and crushed the deceased.

3. A First Information Report under Section 279/304-A IPC was

registered against the driver of the offending tempo being FIR

No.227/2007 Police Station, Alipur. A Claim Petition was filed by

the respondents No.1 to 5, being the widow of the deceased, children

of the deceased and mother of the deceased before the Claims

Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal, from the evidence on record, found

that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent

driving of the offending tempo, and awarded a sum of ` 7,68,260/- to

the claimants alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from

the date of the filing of the petition, i.e. 10.12.2007 till the date of the

realisation of the amount.

4. Mr. K.L.Nandwani, the learned counsel for the Insurance

Company has challenged the aforesaid award passed by the Claims

Tribunal solely on the ground that the Claims Tribunal, in view of the

fact that the claimants had totally failed to prove the income of the

deceased, while taking the income of the deceased on the basis of the

minimum wages applicable on the date of the accident to a

matriculate erred in giving the benefit of doubling of the minimum

wages. The contention of Mr. Nandwani is that this tantamounted to

the Claims Tribunal awarding the benefit of future prospects of the

deceased to the claimants, which could not be done, keeping in view

the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bijoy Kumar

Dugar versus Bidya Dhar Dutta, (2006)3 SCC 242 and Sarla Verma

versus Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) ACJ 1298. In both the

aforesaid cases, the Supreme Court, Mr. Nandwani contended, had

unequivocally laid down that while assessing the income of the

deceased for the purpose of calculating the loss of dependency of his

legal representatives, the future prospects of the deceased could not

be taken into account where the deceased had no permanent

employment.

5. I am not inclined to agree with the aforesaid contention of Mr.

K.L.Nandwani, the learned counsel for the appellant, as to my mind,

there is a basic difference between the Claims Tribunal taking into

account the increase in minimum wages and taking into account the

future prospects of advancement of the deceased in his career or job,

and the fallacy lies in confusing the two.

6. Judicial notice has been taken time and again of the fact, by

different Benches of this High Court, that minimum wages get

doubled over a period of 10 years and this is a fact which cannot be

brushed aside while computing the loss of dependency of the legal

representatives of the deceased in a motor vehicular accident. In the

following amongst other decisions, this Court has taken the view that

the benefit of doubling of minimum wages must be given to counter

the rise in price index and inflation:

              (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, 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.

7. As regards the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the

Insurance Company on the cases of Bijoy Kumar Dugar and Sarla

Verma (supra), it is apposite that in both the said cases the aspect of

rise in the minimum wage rate has not even been touched upon and as

a matter of fact in both the cases, it has been emphasized that the

Claims Tribunal must assess the income of the deceased on the basis

of the evidence placed on record by the claimants.

8. During the course of hearing, furthermore, no cogent reason

could be assigned by the learned counsel for the appellant as to why

judicial notice should not be taken of the fact that the Government of

the National Capital Territory of Delhi, by notification, increases the

rate of minimum wages every six months or so to meet the increase in

price index and inflation rates, and for this reason this Court has

consistently taken the view that in cases where the compensation

payable to the victim or his legal representatives is being computed

on the basis of minimum wages, the minimum wages earned by the

deceased must be presumed to have doubled over a span of 10 years.

9. In the instant case, the deceased was aged 37 years and was

stated to be earning a sum of ` 5,000/- per month, at the time of his

death, as the conductor of the dumper behind which he was sitting,

when the unfortunate accident occurred. The Claims Tribunal,

however, observed that the claimants had not placed on record the

income proof of the deceased nor examined the employer of the

deceased to show what salary he was getting. In such a situation, the

Claims Tribunal resorted to the help of the Minimum Wage Rate

Chart for the relevant period and held that the deceased being a

matriculate must be presumed to be earning a sum of ` 3,918 per

month as per the Schedule notified under the Minimum Wages Act.

Thereafter, the Claims Tribunal took the average of the current

income of the deceased and the future income of the deceased, that is,

` 3,918/- and ` 7,836/-, divided the sum total by 2 and, accordingly,

assessed the monthly income of the deceased at ` 5,877/- per month,

that is, ` 70,524/- per year. To this multiplicand, the learned

Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 applicable to the age group of

persons between 36 to 40 years at the time of the death. On the

assumption that the deceased was expending 1/4th of his income upon

his own upkeep, the Tribunal thus assessed the loss of dependency to

be in the sum of ` 7,93,260/- , to which amount the Tribunal added a

sum of ` 25,000/- by way of non-pecuniary damages and, thereafter,

deducting the interim compensation of ` 50,000/- , awarded a sum of

` 7,68, 260/- in all, to the claimants.

10. I find no error in the aforementioned computation of the loss

of dependency of the respondents herein. The mode of calculating

the award amount as adopted by the Claims Tribunal, to my mind,

was just and proper and calls for no interference.

The award is accordingly upheld. Resultantly, the appeal is

dismissed as being without merit.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) May 13, 2011 ak