Asha Devi & Anr vs S Sudhir & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 5840 Del

$~39
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                    Date of Decision: November 30, 2011
+      MAC.APP. 1071/2011


       ASHA DEVI & ANR                                   ..... Appellants
                      Through               Ms. Nikita Sharma, Advocate

                      versus


       S SUDHIR & ORS                                       ..... Respondents
                               Through      None


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


                               JUDGMENT

% G.P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL)

CM No.21669/2011(Exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

CM. No.21670/2011(delay)

Delay condoned for the reasons as stated in the appeal disposed off.

MAC.APP. 1071/2011

1. The Appellants seek enhancement of compensation in respect of death of deceased

Rewati Lal, who died in a motor accident which took place on 18.03.2007. The Appellants case

was that the deceased was working as a driver privately and getting a salary of Rs.6,000/- to

7,000/- per month. In absence of any proof of income, the Tribunal took the minimum wages of

skilled worker on the date of accident i.e. Rs.3894/- per month, added 50% towards indexation

on account of inflation on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Kanwar Devi Vs. Bansal

Roadways, 2008 ACJ 2182 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Renu Devi, 2009 ACJ

1921, applied the multiplier of 15 as per age of the deceased on the basis of Sarla Verma &

Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and calculated the dependency as

Rs.5,84,160/-. The Tribunal further awarded the conventional sums in terms of the Supreme

Court judgment in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (supra) towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and

funeral expenses and loss of love and affection and computed the total compensation at

`6,16,160/-

2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the deceased was getting a salary

of Rs.7,000/- per month and the Tribunal ought to have taken the same into consideration to

arrive at the loss of dependency. No evidence with regard to the deceased's income was

produced before the Tribunal. Thus, in my view, the Tribunal rightly took the minimum wages

of a skilled worker to calculate dependency. Otherwise also, the deceased's income was claimed

to be Rs.6,000/- to 7,000/- per month and after giving the benefit of 50% of the minimum wages

to offset the inflation, the monthly income taken by the Tribunal came close to Rs.6,000/-. It

cannot be said that the compensation awarded i.e. Rs.6,16,160/- is not just and unreasonable.

There is no ground to interfere in the impugned award.

3. The Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

G.P. MITTAL, J.

NOVEMBER 30, 2011 pst