Meena & Ors vs Ashok Kumar & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 1956 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Decided on: 21th March, 2012
+       MAC.APP. 295/2010

        MEENA & ORS                             ..... Appellants
                             Through:   Mr.J.S.Kanwar, Advocate

                    versus

        ASHOK KUMAR & ORS                       ..... Respondents
                    Through:            Mr.A.K.Soni, Advocate for R-3

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

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellants who were the widow and the son of deceased Rajeshwar Rai seek enhancement of compensation of ` 2,03,300/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal for his death in an accident which occurred on 11.05.1993.

2. During the enquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that the deceased was working with M/s Chandra Engineering and was getting a salary of ` 1,200/- per month. A salary certificate Ex.PW-3/A was proved by Appellant Meena Devi. The Claims Tribunal declined to believe the same on the ground that the Appellant's testimony was challenged by giving her a suggestion that the deceased was not employed with M/s

Chandra Engineering. It is quite strange that the Claims Tribunal although did not believe the salary yet went on to accept the deceased's income to be ` 2622/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses to compute the loss of dependency as ` 3,56,490/-. Although no loss of income on account of 1½ Bighas of land owned by the deceased was claimed yet the Claims Tribunal deducted 50% of the compensation as the deceased owned some agricultural land. The Claims Tribunal further added sum of ` 10,000/- each towards Loss of Consortium, Loss of Love and Affection and ` 5,000/- towards Funeral Expenses to compute an overall compensation of ` 2,03,300/-.

3. In the absence of any proof of the salary certificate the deceased's income could have been assessed on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker which was ` 1078/- on the date of the accident.

4. The loss of dependency on that basis would come to ` 1,37,984/- (1078X2/3x12x16). Even if the loss of dependency is taken on the basis of salary certificate Ex.PW-3/A, it would come to ` 1,76,256/- (1377x2/3x12x16). If a further sum of ` 25,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards non pecuniary damages is added, the overall compensation would be little less than ` 2,03,300/- which was awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

5. The compensation awarded cannot be said to be low, the same is just and reasonable.

6. The Appeal is devoid of any merit. The same is accordingly dismissed.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MARCH 21, 2012 mr