Delhi High Court
Maya Devi & Ors vs Bindeshwar Singh & Ors on 2 July, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 30th April, 2012
Pronounced on: 2nd July, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 835/2010
MAYA DEVI & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate
versus
BINDESHWAR SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa,
Advocate for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `5,81,320/-
awarded for the death of Sat Narayan who suffered fatal injuries
in a motor accident which occurred on 08.06.2007.
2. In the absence of any Cross Objections / Cross Appeal by the
driver, the owner and the Insurer, the finding on negligence
reached by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims
Tribunal) has attained finality. My task is simply to see that the
compensation awarded is just and reasonable or not.
3. The Appellants' grievance is that the deceased Sat Narayan was
working as a Commission Agent in Naya Bazar. He had an
income of `10,000/- to `11,000/- per month. The Claims
Tribunal erred in rejecting the First Appellant's testimony with
regard to the deceased's income and deciding the petition on the
basis of the Minimum Wages fixed by the Govt. of NCT of
Delhi under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
4. Deceased Sat Narayan was working as a Commission Agent
with one Pramod Kumar in Naya Bazar. The Appellant Maya
Devi filed her Affidavit Ex.PW-1/A testifying the deceased's
income to be `10,000/- to `11,000/- per month. In cross-
examination, she deposed that she was not aware if her husband
was an income tax payee or not. She admitted that she had a
bank account but she was not depositing any money therein.
She denied the suggestion that her husband was not even
earning `2,000/- per month.
5. PW-2 Sunil Kumar owner of a Dal Mill in the name and style of
Krishna Food Traders, deposed that the deceased was carrying
out the task of weighing food items/pulses on order from the
Dal Mill owners. He deposed that his brother Pramod used to
get the pulses weighed through the deceased. He testified that
he had no knowledge as to what the deceased used to charge as
the weighing charges.
6. Pramod Gupta for whom the deceased was working has not
been produced in the Court. The Claims Tribunal, therefore,
took the minimum wages of an unskilled worker, added 50%
towards inflation, deducted one-third towards the personal and
living expenses and applied the multiplier of '13' to compute
the loss of dependency as per Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.
7. In the absence of any cogent evidence with regard to the
deceased's income, the Claims Tribunal's finding to compute
the loss of dependency on an assumed income of `5200/- per
month cannot be faulted.
8. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly
dismissed.
9. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JULY 02, 2012
vk
