Ranju Devi & Ors vs Sarvender Singh & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 84 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Decided on: 4th January, 2012
+       MAC APP. 719/2011

        RANJU DEVI & ORS                     ..... Appellant
                      Through:         Mr. Naveent Goyal, Adv. with
                                       Ms. Suman N. Rawat, Adv.
                    versus

        SARVENDER SINGH & ORS               ..... Respondent
                     Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv. for R-3.

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

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Appellant seeks enhancement of the compensation for the death of one Ram Ashish Yadav who died in a motor accident which took place on 20.06.2010. It was alleged that the deceased was working as a driver and getting a salary of Rs. 7,500/- per month apart from daily allowance of Rs. 100/-.

2. My task is easier as no cross appeal has been filed by the Respondent Insurance Company or by the owner and the driver.

3. On facts, the Tribunal found that the deceased's income of Rs.

7,500/- plus daily allowance of Rs.100/- was not proved. The Tribunal took the minimum wages of a skilled worker, added 50% towards the inflation and computed the loss of dependency

as Rs.14,04,096/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate.

4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Salary Certificate Ex.P-6 was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal and higher multiplier should have been applied.

5. I would not agree with the contention raised. The Salary Certificate Ex.P-6 was not proved by an authorized person of the alleged employer or the author thereof. Since the Salary Certificate was not legally proved, it was rightly not taken into account by the Tribunal.

6. A perusal of the award would show that the Tribunal was very benevolent in awarding the compensation.

7. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE

JANUARY, 04, 2012 vk