Delhi High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Subhash & Ors. on 19 April, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:19th April, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.572/2011
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate
Versus
SUBHASH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Respondents No.1 & 2 present
in person.
Mr. Yashpal Rangi, Advocate
for the Respondent No.4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `6,64,090/-
awarded for the death of an unmarried girl Neha who was aged
about 19 years, had passed her 10+2 examination and was
pursuing further studies by a correspondence course.
2. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that
the deceased was working as a teacher in B.L. Shiksha Sadan,
High School, Sonipat and was getting a salary of `6,000/- per
month. In the absence of any documentary evidence in the
shape of an appointment letter or payment of salary or
examination of any witness of the employer, the Claims
Tribunal took the minimum wages of a matriculate, added 50%
towards inflation to compute the loss of dependency as
`6,39,090.
3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that since
there was no evidence of gainful employment or future
prospects, the Claims Tribunal was not justified in making any
addition either towards future prospects or towards inflation.
4. In Dhaneshwari & Another v. Tajeshwar Singh & Others, MAC.
APP 997/2011 decided on 19.3.2012, after noticing the
Judgments of this Court in Smt. Anari Devi v. Shri Tilak Raj &
Anr., II (2004) ACC 739; (2005 ACJ 1397), National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pooja & Ors., II (2006) ACC 382 (2007
ACJ 1051), Om Kumari & Ors. v. Shish Pal & Ors, 140 (2007)
DLT 62, Narinder Bishal & Anr. v. Rambir Singh & Ors., MAC
APP. 1007-08/2006, decided on 20.02.2008, New India
Assurance Co. Ld. v. Vijay Singh MAC APP. 280/2008 decided
on 09.05.2008; Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Smt.
Rajni Devi & Ors. MAC APP.286/2011 decided on 06.01.2012;
Smt. Gulabeeya Devi v. Mehboob Ali & Ors. MAC
APP.463/2011 decided on 10.01.2012 and IFFCO TOKIO
Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Rooniya Devi & Ors. MAC APP.189/2011
decided on 30.01.2012 and Division Bench Judgments of this
Court in Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Kumari
Lalita 22 (1982) DLT 170 (DB) and Rattan Lal Mehta v.
Rajinder Kapoor & Anr. II (1996) ACC 1 (DB), this Court has
held that in view of Rattan Lal Mehta (supra) increase in
minimum wages cannot be given on account of future inflation.
5. The Claims Tribunal in the absence of any cogent evidence with
regard to the deceased's employment was justified in taking
minimum wages of a matriculate for the purpose of computing
the loss of dependency. Addition on account of inflation,
however, was not justified. The loss of dependency comes to
`4,26,060/-. On addition of sums of `25,000/- towards loss of
love and affection and `10,000/- each towards loss to estate
and funeral expenses, the overall compensation comes to
`4,71,060/-.
6. The compensation thus stands reduced from `6,64,090/- to
`4,71,060/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of
filing of the Petition till the date of deposit in this Court.
7. The excess amount of `1,93,030/- along with proportionate
interest and the interest accrued during the pendency of the
Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
8. The compensation awarded shall be released/held in Fixed
Deposit in favour of the Respondents No.1 and 2 in terms of
the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.
9. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
10. The statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 19, 2012
pst
