Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Saraswati Devi & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 2060 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Decided on: 26th March, 2012
+       MAC.APP. 869/2011
        ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
                                                      ..... Appellant
                         Through: Mr. Atul Nanda, Sr. Advocate
                                  Ms. Rameeza Hakeem, Adv.
                                  Mr.Khalid Arshad, Adv.
                                  Mr. Rajat Brar, Adv.
                                  Ms. Priyadarshi Gopal, Adv.
                  versus
        SARASWATI DEVI & ORS.                 ..... Respondents
                         Through: Mr. A.N. Pandey, Adv. for
                                  R-1 to R-5.

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

                           JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `10,71,000/-

awarded for the death of Naresh Prasad, who died in an accident which occurred on 11.03.2009.

2. The finding on negligence is not challenged by the Appellant Insurance Company.

3. During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal), it was claimed that the deceased Naresh Prasad was working as a Carpenter Contractor and was earning `10,000/- per month.

4. The Claims Tribunal, in the absence of any evidence with regard to the deceased's income, took the minimum wages of a skilled worker i.e. `4400/- per month, added 50% towards inflation and on applying the multiplier relevant to the deceased's age, computed the loss of dependency as ` 8,91,000/-.

5. The first Respondent's case that the deceased was working as a carpenter was not challenged in cross-examination. No suggestion was given to Saraswati Devi PW-1 that the deceased was not working as a carpenter.

6. The average income of a carpenter in the year 2009 can be assumed to be about `250/- per day and thus, taking deceased's income to be `6600/- per month by the Claims Tribunal, though on a different criteria cannot be faulted. The compensation awarded is just and reasonable.

7. No other ground has been raised during the hearing of the Appeal.

8. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly dismissed.

9. No costs.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MARCH 26, 2012 vk