Delhi High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Manju Devi & Ors on 23 April, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 23rd April, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 315/2010
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Khalid Arshad, Advocate
for Mr. Atul Nanda, Sr.
Advocate.
versus
MANJU DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashok Popli, Advocate for
Respondents No.1 to 8.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of ` 9,82,640/-
awarded for the death of Vijay Shankar who died in an accident
on 19.08.2007.
2. The finding on negligence is not challenged by the Appellant
Insurance Company. The only ground of challenge is the
assumed income taken by the Claims Tribunal on addition of
50% in the minimum wages of an unskilled worker.
3. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that
the deceased Vijay Shankar was working as a rickshaw puller
and was earning ` 6,500/- per month.
4. In the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the
deceased's employment, the Claims Tribunal took the minimum
wages of an unskilled worker i.e. `3709/- per month, added
50% towards inflation, deducted 1/5th towards the personal and
living expenses and adopted the multiplier of 14 to compute the
loss of dependency as ` 7,52,640/-.
5. The age of the deceased, the number of the family members and
the multiplier has not been disputed by the Appellant. The only
ground of challenge is that 50% addition towards 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 ` 6500/-
per month. In her affidavit Smt. Manju Devi, the deceased's
widow deposed that the deceased was earning `200/- to 250/-
per day while working as a rickshaw puller. No suggestion was
given to PW1 that the deceased did not have this income. In the
circumstances, I would take the income of the rickshaw puller at
`150/- per day i.e. `4500/- per month. Thus, the loss of
dependency would come to `6,04,800/- (`4500 X 4/5 X 14 X
12).
8. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that loss of
love and affection granted to each of the eight Respondents @
`25,000/- is on the higher side. I agree that normally, a
compensation of `25,000/- is granted under the loss of love and
affection irrespective of the number of dependents. But, in the
absence of any challenge to the award on this count, I would not
interfere with the same.
9. The overall compensation comes to `8,34,800/- which shall
carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till the date of payment.
10. The excess amount of `1,47,840/- 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.
11. The statutory amount of `25,000/- deposited shall be refunded
to the Appellant Insurance Company.
12. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 23, 2012
pst
