Delhi High Court
Asha & Ors vs Suresh Kumar & Ors. on 11 April, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 11th April, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 1055/2011
ASHA & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate
versus
SURESH KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kakushik with
Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Advocate
for the Respondent No.1.
Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Advocate
for the Respondents No.2 to 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of ` 2,92,000/-
awarded for the death of Madan Lal, who was aged about 41
years on the date of the accident.
2. A Claim Petition was filed by the Appellants under Section
163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act). The Appellants'
grievance is that the deceased was working as a Safai
Karamchari in the MCD on Daily Wages. In the absence of
any documentary evidence, the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) instead of taking the deceased's
income of an unskilled worker under the Minimum Wages Act
took the notional income of ` 30,000/- per annum and computed
the loss of dependency as `2,80,000/-.
3. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that
in a Petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,
the compensation has to be awarded as per the structured
formula given in the Second Schedule. I am supported in this
view by the reports of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance
Company v. Hansrajbhai v. Kodala, (2001) 5 SCC 175, Deepal
Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Company Limited,
(2004) 5 SCC 385 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited v.
Meena Variyal (2007) 5 SCC 428.
4. The contention raised on behalf of the Appellant is that even if
the salary of a Safai Karamchari in MCD was not taken into
consideration. The Claims Tribunal should have taken
minimum wages of an unskilled worker to compute the loss of
dependency. I would agree with the contention raised on behalf
of the Appellant.
5. The Minimum Wages of an unskilled worker on the date of the
accident i.e. 17.05.2004 were ` 2863/- per month.
6. Hence, the loss of dependency on the income of ` 2863/- per
month comes to ` 3,43,560/- (2863/- x 2/3 x 12 x 15).
7. On adding notional sum of ` 9,500/- under various non-
pecuniary heads i.e. for Loss of Consortium, Funeral Expenses
and Loss to Estate which would be `5,000/-, `2,000/- and
`2,500/- respectively as per the Second Schedule, the overall
compensation comes to ` 3,53,060/-.
8. The compensation thus stands enhanced from `2,92,000/- to `
3,53,060/-. The enhanced compensation of `61,060/- shall carry
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
Petition till the date of payment.
9. The enhanced amount along with interest shall be deposited by
Respondents No.2 to 4 with the Registrar General of this Court
within six weeks.
10. The enhanced compensation shall enure for the benefit of the
first Appellant, the deceased's widow. 50% of the enhanced
compensation along with interest shall be held in fixed deposit
for a period of three years in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
Branch, New Delhi. Rest of the amount along with interest
shall be released to her immediately on deposit.
11. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
12. No costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 11, 2012
vk
