Delhi High Court
Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. vs Pooja Devi & Ors. on 6 March, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 6th March, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 922/2011
IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate
versus
POOJA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nikita Sharma, Adv. for R-1 to
R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of ` 13,22,544/-
granted for the death of Sunil Kumar who died in an accident
which occurred on 28.04.2010.
2. During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the
Claims Tribunal) it was claimed that the deceased was running
a tea shop and was earning ` 15,000/- per month. The Claims
Tribunal in the absence of any documentary evidence took the
deceased's income to be `5278/- i.e. minimum wages of
unskilled worker, added 50% towards the inflation, deducted
one-fourth towards the personal and living expenses to compute
the loss of dependency as ` 12,82,544/-.
3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the
Claims Tribunal erred in making addition of 50% in the
minimum wages.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/
Claimants submits that in the absence of any rebuttal the
deceased's income of ` 15,000/- per month should have been
accepted.
5. Before the Claims Tribunal, the First Respondent i.e. widow of
the deceased examined herself as PW-1. In her cross-
examination, the deceased's wife testified that, the deceased
was running a tea stall selling tea and biscuits and was earning `
15,000/- per month, she added that the deceased was not paying
any income tax. No proof of deceased's income was placed on
record by the first Respondent. At the same time, the first
Respondent's testimony that the deceased was running a tea
shop was not challenged in cross-examination.
6. I would assess the income of a small tea stall owner about `
250-/- per day i.e. ` 7500/- per month. On making the provision
of one-third towards personal and living expenses (considering
the number of dependents to be three, father being excluded for
want of evidence), and on applying the multiplier of '18' the
loss of dependency comes of ` 10,80,000/- (` 7500/- x 2/3 x 12
x 18).
7. On adding the notional sum of ` 25,000/- towards loss of love
and affection, ` 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, ` 10,000/-
towards loss to estate and ` 10,000/- towards funeral expenses,
the overall compensation comes to ` 11,35,000/-.
8. The overall compensation is thus reduced from ` 13,22,544/- to
` 11,35,000/-.
9. The excess amount of ` 1,87,544/- along with the proportionate
interest, if any, earned during the pendency of the Appeal shall
be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
10. From the awarded amount, the third Respondent Shanti Devi
shall be entitled to a sum of `1,00,000/- along with
proportionate interest @ 7.5% per annum; the Fourth
Respondent Gore Lal shall be entitled to a sum of ` 50,000/-
along with proportionate interest. Rest of the amount along with
the proportionate interest shall be equally divided between the
First and the second Respondents.
11. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
12. No costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 06, 2012
vk
