Delhi High Court
Sudesh & Ors. vs Icici Lombard General Insurance ... on 9 February, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 6th February, 2012
Pronounced on:9th February, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.397/2011 & CM. APPL 8996/2011(stay)
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate
Versus
SUDESH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate for
the Respondents /Claimants
WITH
+ MAC. APP. No.59/2012
SUDESH & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate
Versus
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate
for the Respondent Insurance Company
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. These are two Cross-Appeals. The MAC APP No.397/2011 is
for reduction of compensation of ` 8,25,500/- for the death of
Ram Prakash who was aged 39 years at the time of the accident
which took place on 18.04.2009. The Cross-Appeal MAC
APP No.59/2012 is for enhancement of compensation on the
ground that the deceased's actual income was not taken into
consideration. For the sake of convenience, the Respondents in
MAC APP No.397/2011 who are Appellants in Cross-Appeal
MAC APP No.59/2012 shall be referred as Claimants.
2. During inquiry before the Tribunal, it was claimed that the
deceased was working as a Plant Engineer with M/s. Trinity
Tiles & Bricks Company, Satyam Vihar, Phase-II, Baprola, and
earning `8000/- per month. The Claimants examined Naresh
Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Trinity Tiles & Bricks Company
who produced a certificate Ex.PW1/2 to show that the deceased
was getting a salary of `8000/- per month. The witness was
directed to produce the documents regarding the deceased's
appointment and his salary. Although the witness was to
produce the same on the next date of hearing, but he did not
produce any document. The Claimants did not press for
production of the record and the evidence was closed. It was
under these circumstances that the Tribunal took the minimum
wages of an unskilled worker, added 50% towards indexation
and to provide a better standard of living to the lowest paid
workers, deducted 1/4th towards loss of personal and living
expenses (considering the number of dependents to be 5)
applied the multiplier of 15 to compute the loss of dependency
as `8,00,482/-.
3. It is urged on behalf of the Appellant that 50% increase in
minimum wages could not have been given as future prospects
are awarded where there is evidence of progression in career or
annual increase in the salary. The employment of the deceased
has also to be permanent.
4. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the Claimants(in
Cross-Appeal MAC APP No.59/2012) that the deceased's
income of `8,000/- ought to have been considered to compute
the loss of dependency and some compensation should have
been awarded under the head of loss of love and affection.
5. During hearing of the Appeal, the Claimants were directed to
produce PW4 along with the record of the deceased's
employment, but his whereabouts could not be known. Thus,
the salary certificate Ex.PW1/2 was rightly disbelieved by the
Tribunal.
6. There are a catena of judgments of this Court where an addition
of 50% has been made in the minimum wages on the ground
that the minimum wages are increased to offset inflation and to
provide a better standard of living to the lowest paid
employees.
7. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Renu Devi & Ors., III
(2008) ACC 134, this Court held that the increase in the
minimum wages is not on account of promotion of an unskilled
worker or on account of advancement in his career but the
same is due to increase in the price index and cost of living. It
has also to be borne in mind that the minimum wages are
revised not only to meet the inflation but also to improve the
standard of living of the lowest paid workers and to give them
benefit of growth in GDP.
8. Similar view was taken by this Court in Narinder Bishal & Anr.
v. Rambir Singh & Ors., 2009 ACJ 1881; UPSRTC v. Munni
Devi, IV (2009) ACC 879; and Vinod Kumar Bansal v. Ranbir
Singh & Ors., 2011 ACJ 1672 (Delhi).
9. A perusal of the Notifications issued under the Minimum
Wages Act would show that the minimum wages of an
unskilled worker were revised from ` 3470/- as on 1.02.2007 to
` 6,422/- on 01.04.2011. Thus, it has to be noticed that there
was an increase of more than 90% in the minimum wages in
just four years. This was not on account of inflation but to
provide a better standard of living to the lowest paid workers.
10. Thus, the Appellants were entitled to an addition of 50% in the
income on account of indexation and increase in minimum
wages to provide better standard of living.
11. Some compensation ought to have been awarded under the head
of loss of love and affection. The Supreme Court in Sunil
Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby
Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009)
17 SCC 627 granted only ` 25,000/- (in total to all the
claimants) under the head of loss of love and affection. Thus, I
would grant the compensation under this head to ` 25,000/-
12. The overall compensation is enhanced from ` 8,25,500/- to `
8,50,000/-.
13. The increased compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of
payment which shall be deposited with the Registrar General of
this Court within 30 days from the date of the order. On
deposit of the amount, it shall be released in favour of the First
Respondent in terms of the Tribunal's order.
14. The MAC APP. No.397/2011 is dismissed.
15. The Cross-Appeal MAC APP No.59/2012 is allowed in above
terms.
16. The statutory amount, if deposited by the Appellant Insurance
Company shall also be returned.
17. No costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 09, 2012
pst
