Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Asha & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 2650 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      Date of decision: 23rd April, 2012
+        MAC. APP. 48/2011

         BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
                                                 ...... Appellant
                       Through: Ms. Rameeza Hakeem, Adv.
                                with Mr. Khalid Arshad, Adv.

                     Versus

         ASHA & ORS.                                ...... Respondents
                           Through:      Nemo.

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

                           JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `9,90,560/-

awarded for the death of Laxmi Narain, who died in an accident which occurred on 27.04.2009.

2. The finding on negligence is not challenged by the Appellant Insurance Company.

3. During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal), it was claimed that the deceased Laxmi Narayan was employed with Kumar Selections, 12 DDA Market, Jail Road, New Delhi and was getting a salary of ` 7,000/- per month. Although the Salary Certificate Ex.PW-1/2

was placed on record but nobody was summoned from the employer of the deceased. Rather, the deceased's widow testified that she should be awarded compensation on the basis of minimum wages. Perhaps, the widow did not want to produce any evidence or did not have any evidence to produce regarding the deceased's income.

4. In the absence of any evidence with regard to the deceased's employment, the Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of an unskilled worker i.e. `3934/- per month, added 50% towards inflation, deducted one-fourth towards the personal and living expenses and adopted the multiplier of 16 (relevant to the deceased's age 35 years), to compute the loss of dependency as `8,50,560/-.

5. The age of the deceased, the number of family members and the multiplier has not been disputed by the Appellant. The only ground of challenge is that 50% addition on account of future inflation should not have been given.

6. 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.

7. In this case, the deceased's income was claimed to be `7,000/-

per month. As stated above, the deceased's profession and his salary was not established rather, the deceased's widow, (the First Respondent herein) herself made statement that she should be awarded compensation on the basis of minimum wages.

8. As stated earlier increase in the minimum wages cannot be given on account of future inflation. The loss of dependency thus comes to `5,66,496/- (3934/- x 3/4 x 12 x 16).

9. There is no challenge to the compensation awarded under other heads. On adding a sum of `25,000/- towards Funeral Expenses, `25,000/- towards Loss of Love and Affection, `

10,000/- towards Loss of Consortium and `5,000/- towards Loss to Estate, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the overall compensation comes to `6,31,496/-.

10. The compensation is thus reduced from `9,90,560/- to ` 6,31,496/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment.

11. The excess amount of `3,59,064/- along with the proportionate interest and the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

12. The statutory amount of `25,000/- deposited shall also be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

13. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE APRIL 23, 2012 vk