Delhi High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Preeti & Ors. on 5 March, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 2nd February, 2012
Pronounced on: 5th March, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.747/2010
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate
Versus
PREETI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate
for the Respondents /Claimants
WITH
+ MAC. APP. No.277/2011
PREETI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate
Versus
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, 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.747/2010 is
filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. seeking
reduction of compensation of `10,89,002/- awarded for the
death of Sunny aged 22 years who died in a motor accident
which occurred on 03.04.2010. In Cross-Objections registered
as MAC APP No.277/2011, the Respondents No.1 to 4 seek
enhancement of compensation on the ground that the increase
of 50% towards future prospects ought to have been given on
the deceased's income of `6,000/- per month. For the sake of
convenience, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. shall be
referred to as the Appellant and the Respondents No.1 to 4 who
have filed the Cross-Objections as the Claimants.
2. The Claims Tribunal by impugned judgment took the
deceased's income to be `4214/- per month on the basis of the
salary certificate collected by the I.O. while filing the Detailed
Accident Report before the Claims Tribunal; and added 50%
towards future prospects to compute the loss of dependency.
3. Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:
i) The Claims Tribunal was not justified in giving the
benefit of future increase in the income of the
deceased in the absence of any evidence with
regard to the permanent employment.
ii) The deceased's father should not have been
considered as a dependent and there should have
been deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living
expenses instead of 1/4th made by the Claims
Tribunal.
4. Per contra, it is urged on behalf of the Claimants that the
deceased's salary ought to have been taken as `6,000/- and not
`4214/- per month and considering that the deceased was in
regular employment, 100% increase ought to have been given.
It is stated that since the number of dependents were four
including the father, the Claims Tribunal was justified in
deducting 1/4th of the deceased's income towards his personal
and living expenses.
5. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, the First Respondent
filed her affidavit Ex.PW1/A and entered the witness box as
PW1. She deposed that the deceased was getting a salary of
`6,000/- per month. She proved the deceased's ESI Card as
Ex.PW1/1. In cross-examination, she admitted that the salary
slip for March, 2010 issued by the Frontier Biscuit Factory
showed that his salary was `4214/- per month. She testified
that her father-in-law was not working. No evidence was
produced by the Appellant to rebut PW1's testimony that the
deceased's father was not earning.
6. It is important to note that the deceased was employed in a well-
known biscuit manufacturing company, i.e., Frontier Biscuit
Factory Pvt. Ltd. which has wide-spread outlets throughout the
N.C.T. of Delhi and in the N.C.R. The minimum wages of an
unskilled worker on 01.08.2009 were `3,953/-. A Notification
No.F.12(142)/02/MW/Lab/5573 dated 09.03.2010 was issued
by the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi revising minimum
wages of an unskilled worker retrospectively w.e.f. 01.02.2010
from `3,953/- to `5,278/- per month. Since the deceased was
working in a reputed factory, he was getting more than the
minimum wages. The revision in the salary in the factories
takes some time since the minimum wages were revised in the
month of March, 2010 and the deceased died on 03.04.2010.
In view of the minimum wages being `5,278/-, I would
consider the deceased's salary on the date of his death to be
about ` 6,000/- per month.
7. Of course, it is established that the deceased was in employment
in Frontier Biscuit Factory for the last about six months, ESI
Card was also issued to him. But, there was no evidence that
he was in permanent employment. In any case, to grant future
prospects, it must be established that he was in stable
employment. In the absence of any evidence in this regard, the
Claimants were not entitled to addition on account of future
prospects.
8. In the absence of any evidence to rebut the PW'1 testimony that
the deceased's father was not earning, I would rely on the same
and hold the number of dependents to be four. The Claims
Tribunal, therefore, rightly deducted 1/4th towards the personal
and living expenses of the deceased.
9. On taking the deceased's salary to be `6,000/- per month, the
loss of dependency comes to `9,72,000/- (`6000 X 12 X 3/4 X
18). There is no challenge to the award of compensation of
`10,000/- each to the four Claimants towards loss of love and
affection. Therefore, I would not interfere with the same.
10. On revised computation, the overall compensation comes to
`10,37,000/- as against `10,89,002/-. The compensation is,
therefore, reduced by `52,000/-.
11. There shall be reduction of the compensation of `52,000/- from
the compensation in the share of the Third Respondent i.e. Shiv
Sagar who is the deceased's father. Thus, he will get a
compensation of ` 1,48,000/- with proportionate interest.
12. The excess sum of `52,000/- along with proportionate interest
and the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the
Appeal will be refunded to the Appellant Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Ltd.
13. Both the Appeals are disposed of in above terms.
14. The statutory amount shall also be returned to the Appellant
Insurance Company.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 05, 2012
pst
