Delhi High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Sneh Wishard & Ors. on 23 November, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 21st November, 2011
Pronounced on: 23rd November, 2011
+ MAC APP. 559/2009
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD...... Appellant
Through: Mr. D.K.Sharma, Advocate.
Versus
SNEH WISHARD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Respondents No.1 to 3 Ex parte.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the Order?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Order should be reported
in the Digest?
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appellant National Insurance Company Limited impugns
the award dated 01.09.2009 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) whereby the compensation of `
4,43,000/- was awarded to Respondents No.1 to 3 on account of
death of Late Ariel Wishard.
2. The Appellant's grievance is that there could not have been
addition of 50% of the minimum wages to calculate the average
income of the deceased as the deceased was already 57 years of
age.
3. A perusal of the award reveals that in the absence of any proof
of income, the Tribunal took the minimum wages @ ` 3271/- as
the deceased's income. The Tribunal added 50% of the
minimum wages on the basis of judgment of this Court in
National Insurance Company Limited v. Kailash Devi II (2008)
ACC 770 to offset the inflation; applied the multiplier of 9;
deducted one-third towards the personal expenses and
calculated the dependency at ` 3,53,376/-.
4. In Kailash Devi (supra) this Court held that the minimum
wages doubles within a span of ten years and therefore, 50%
addition has to be made in the minimum wages to offset
inflation. Similar view was taken by this Court in Kanwar Devi
and Ors. v. Bansal Roadways & Ors., 2008 ACJ 2181, where it
was held that the minimum wages is not akin to future
prospects.
5. It is true that the inflation and price indexation is not the same
as the future prospects, yet the future prospects are considered
where the deceased or injured is comparatively young. The
principles as given in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., 2009 (6) SCC 121, while considering the
future prospects would equally apply while considering the
indexation due to inflation in case of minimum wages i.e.
addition of 50% towards inflation and indexation where the
deceased/injured was below 40 years; 30% where the
deceased/injured was less than 50 years and 'NIL' where the
deceased/injured was more than 50 years.
6. Since the deceased was 57 years of age, the increase due to
inflation could not have been awarded as is evident from the
fact that at the age of 57 only a multiplier of 9 is applicable.
7. Thus, the dependency ought to be calculated at the assumed
income i.e. ` 3271/- of the deceased. The dependency after
deducting one-third towards personal expenses works out to `
2,35,548/- (i.e. ` 3271/- minus 1/3rd x 12 x 9). On adding the
conventional sum of ` 80,000/- towards loss of consortium,
funeral charges and loss of love and affection as awarded by the
Tribunal, the total compensation works out to be ` 3,15,548/- as
against ` 4,33,376/-.
8. The excess amount deposited in terms of the order of this Court
dated 21.12.2009 shall be refunded to the Appellant out of the
last FDR/FDRs.
9. The appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified to
the extent indicated above. No costs.
10. Copy of the order may be sent to the trial court for information.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 23, 2011
vk
