Delhi High Court
Royal Sundaram Alliance ... vs Gurnam Kaur & Ors. on 17 January, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 4th January, 2012
Pronounced on: 17th January, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 588/2011
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD.
.... Appellant
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv.
versus
GURNAM KAUR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gurmit Singh Hans, Adv.
for R-1 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appellant seeks reduction of compensation awarded by
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal), for the death of
Harvinder Singh, who died in an accident which took place on
04.11.2009.
2. The only ground of challenge is the addition of 50% to the
minimum wages taken by the Tribunal to determine the loss of
dependency. During inquiry before the Tribunal it was claimed
that the deceased was engaged in repair, sale and purchase of
second hand AC, washing machine and other electrical
appliances and was earning ` 10,000/- per month.
3. In the absence of any cogent evidence, the Tribunal took the
minimum wages of a skilled worker, added 50% towards
inflation on the basis of National Insurance Company Limited v.
Kailash Devi, II (2008) ACC 770 and worked out the loss of
dependency as ` 8,39,565/-. The overall compensation of `
9,69,565/- was awarded to the Claimants.
4. This Court in (i) UPSRTC v. Munni Devi, IV (2009) ACC 879;
(ii) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Renu Devi & Ors., III
(2008) ACC 134; and (iii) Narinder Bishal & Anr. v. Rambir
Singh & Ors. MAC APP. 1007-08/2006 decided on 20th
February, 2008 has observed that 50% of the minimum wages
have to be added to offset the inflation due to indexation. 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 hence there is need to add 50% of the minimum
wages to arrive at the victim's income.
5. A perusal of the Notifications issued under the Minimum
Wages Act would show that the minimum wages of a skilled
worker were revised from `4377/- on 01.08.2009 to ` 6448/- on
01.02.2010. Thus, it is to be noticed that there was an increase
of about 50% in the minimum wages in just six months. This
was not on account of inflation but to provide a better standard
of living.
6. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Renu Devi & Ors., III
(2008) ACC 134, it was held as under:-
"9. In a recent decision of this Court Sh.
Narinder Bishal and Anr. v. Sh. Rambir Singh and
Ors., MAC App. 1007-08/2006, decided on
20.02.08 by Kailash Gambhir, J., it has been
observed as under:-
"For determining the earning of the
deceased or victim of the accident, the
claimants are supposed to prove the
exact income of the deceased by
leading some cogent and reliable
documentary evidence as to the
nature of his employment or trade or
business or in any other activity he
was involved in and then the said
income can be taken into
consideration for determining the
quantum of compensation and if in
such a case, the claimants are further
able to establish the future prospects
as well, then the criteria laid down in
Sarla Dixit's case would get attracted.
There can be another category of
cases where the claimants are able to
establish the future prospects of the
deceased by quantifying the amount to
be earned by the deceased in future
with the help of cogent, reliable and
convincing evidence and in all such
cases the tribunal can take into
consideration such future increase as
has been established by the claimants
on record. The difficulty however,
would arise in all those cases where
although the claimants are able to
sufficiently establish on record the
educational qualification of the
deceased or the nature of his
employment whether skilled, semi-
skilled or unskilled but fail to
establish by any reliable evidence to
prove the exact income of the
deceased. In such cases, question
arises whether the Tribunal can take
into consideration the minimum
wages and the periodical revision of
minimum wages as are fixed by the
Government under the Minimum
Wages Act. To examine this question,
it will have to be considered whether
the revision which takes place under
the Minimum Wages Act can be
equated with the future prospects of a
deceased. As would be evident from
catena of judgments of the Supreme
Court, the future prospects have no
correlation with the price index,
inflation or denunciation of currency
value.
The future prospects would
necessarily mean advancement in
future career, earnings and
progression in one's life. It could be
considered by seeing, from which post
a person began his career, what
avenues or prospects he has while
being in a particular avocation and
what targets he/she would finally
achieve at the end of his career. The
promotional avenues, career
progression, grant of selection grades
etc. are some of the broad features for
considering one's future prospects in
one's career.
The minimum wage, in the very
context of economy has a correlation
with the growth and development of
the nation's economy, postulating
increase in the price index, reduction
of purchasing power with the
denunciation of currency value and
consequent fixation of minimum
wages giving some periodical
increase so as to ensure sustenance
and survival of the workman class.
Keeping this in view, under no
circumstance the revision of minimum
wages can be treated on the same
footing with the factor of future
prospects."
10. In The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt.
Nirmala Devi and Ors., [2007] VI AD (Delhi) 730,
this Court held:-
"A perusal of the minimum wages
notified under the Minimum Wages
Act show that the minimum wages
gets increased by nearly 150% in 10
years."
11. The Court further observed:-
"Noting that minimum wages
virtually double after every 10 years
to neutralise increase in inflation,
cost of living, purchasing power of
rupee....."
12. Since the minimum wages have doubled in
the past 10 years as per the Minimum Wages Act,
therefore, safely the said increase at least can be
taken in view as a future increase of double
Minimum Wages under the Minimum Wages Act.
Applying the said criteria, the income of the
deceased as assessed in the year 2005 would
increase to Rs. 4,800/- and taking an average of
the same, the Tribunal rightly assessed the income
of deceased at Rs. 3,200/- per month."
7. Thus, the Tribunal's finding making an addition of 50% to give
the benefit of an increase of 50% in the minimum wages cannot
be faulted.
8. It is urged that the compensation of `1,00,000/- towards the loss
of love and affection was excessive. In this regard, I may
mention that where the Claimants are entitled to loss of
dependency on actual basis, normally a nominal sum is awarded
under the head of loss of love and affection. Loss of love and
affection can never be measured in terms of money. Thus,
uniformity has to be adopted by the Courts while granting non-
pecuniary damages irrespective of the number of dependents.
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 reduce the compensation under this
head to ` 25,000/- only.
9. The overall compensation is reduced from `9,69,565/- to
`8,94,565/- (i.e. `9,69,565/- - ` 75,000/-).
10. The excess amount along with interest earned, if any, on the
sum of ` 75,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance
Company. The statutory amount of `25,000/- shall also be
refunded.
11. The compensation shall be disbursed to the Respondents
Claimants proportionately in terms of the Tribunal's award.
12. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
13. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 17, 2012
vk
