Delhi High Court
Ranjha Singh & Anr. vs Dinesh Tiwari & Ors. on 20 April, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 20th April, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 229/2012
RANJHA SINGH & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Ms. Neha Kapoor, Advocate
versus
DINESH TIWARI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. P.K.Seth, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellants who were parents of the deceased Raju Singh
seeks enhancement of compensation of `5,28,120/- for his death
in the accident which occurred on 13.12.2010. The deceased
was aged about 17 years.
2. During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the
Claims Tribunal), it was claimed that the deceased was
following the profession of "key maker" and of opening locks,
(as was done by his father). He had a monthly income of `
6,000/- per month. In the absence of any cogent evidence
regarding the deceased's income, the Claims Tribunal took the
minimum wages, fixed under the Minimum Wages Act on the
date of the accident i.e. `3953/- per month, added 50% towards
future prospects on the basis of the judgment in Sarla Verma
(Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6
SCC 121 to compute the loss of dependency as `4,98,120/-.
3. I would agree that where the children are pursuing the
profession of their parents they start earning at a young age.
Ranjha Singh, the deceased's father was also working as a key
maker. Although, in the Claim Petition the deceased's income
was mentioned to be `6,000/- per month while giving his
deposition in the Court; Ranjha Singh in his Affidavit Ex.PW-
1/A claimed the deceased's income to be `10,000/- per month.
The details of the keys made in a day and the amount charged
for each key by the deceased was not given. PW1 Ranjha
Singh, who must have been in the profession for decades did
not come out with his own income or that if he was an income
tax assessee. In the circumstances, the Claims Tribunal was
justified in taking the minimum wages i.e. `3953/- as the
criteria to an award for loss of dependency.
4. The Claims Tribunal erred in granting future prospects in the
absence of any evidence with regard to the same. Addition of
50% on account of inflation was also not permissible in view of
the judgment of this Court in Dhaneshwari & Another v.
Tajeshwar Singh & Others, MAC. APP 997/2011 decided on
19.3.2012.
5. In Dhaneshwari & Another (supra) 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.
6. As the Appellants were granted compensation on adding future
prospects to which they were not entitled, the compensation
awarded cannot be said to be low, rather, the same was very
liberal.
7. The Appeal preferred by the Appellants is devoid of any merit;
the same is accordingly dismissed.
8. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 20, 2012
vk
