Delhi High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Sariti & 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. 599/2010
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Khalid Arshad, Advocate
for Mr. Atul Nanda, Sr.
Advocate & Ms. Rameeza
Hakeem, Advocate.
versus
SARITI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Radheyshyam Singh,
Advocate for Respondents No.1
to 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of ` 11,98,180/-
awarded for the death of Santosh Kumar who died in an
accident which occurred on 28.11.2008.
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 with an addition
of 50% in the minimum wages of an unskilled worker.
3. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that
the deceased Santosh Kumar was running a shop dealing in sale
and repair of mobile phones.
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. `3683/- per month, added
50% towards inflation, deducted 1/4th towards the personal and
living expenses and adopted the multiplier of 17 to compute the
loss of dependency as ` 8,45,376/-.
5. 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.
6. The Respondents/Claimants failed to produce any evidence with
regard to the deceased's profession or his income. In the
circumstances, the Claims Tribunal was justified in taking the
deceased's income to be `3683/- per month as fixed for an
unskilled worker under the Minimum Wages Act. The Claims
Tribunal, however, was not justified in making an addition of
50% for the reasons as stated earlier. Thus, the loss of
dependency comes to `5,63,499/-(`3683 X 12 -1/4 X 17).
7. There is no other challenge to the impugned judgment. It is,
however, urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that
normally a sum of `25,000/- only is awarded towards loss of
love and affection. The Claims Tribunal erred in granting a
compensation of `50,000/- under this head. I agree that the
normally, a compensation of `25,000/- only is granted under the
loss of love and affection. But, in the absence of any challenge
to the award on this count, I would not interfere with the same.
8. The overall compensation is computed as under:
Sl. Compensation under Awarded by Awarded by
various heads the Claims this Court
No. Tribunal
1. Loss of Dependency `8,45,376/- `5,63,499/-
2. Loss to Estate ` 5,000/- ` 5,000/-
3. Loss of Consortium ` 10,000/- ` 10,000/-
4. Funeral Expenses ` 25,000/- ` 25,000/-
5. Loss of Love & Affection ` 50,000/- ` 50,000/-
6. Medical Treatment ` 2,62,804/- ` 2,62,804/-
Total ` 11,98,180/- ` 9,26,303/-
9. The overall compensation is reduced from `11,98,180/- to
`9,26,303/- 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 `2,71,877/- 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 deposited shall also be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
12. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 23, 2012
pst
