New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Meena & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 2062 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Decided on: 26th March, 2012
+       MAC.APP. 513/2011

        NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD      ..... Appellant
                     Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv.

                    versus

        MEENA & ORS.                               ..... Respondents
                             Through:   Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. with
                                        Ms. Suman N. Rawat, Adv.

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

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `13,55,056/-

awarded for the death of Satish Kumar, who died in an accident which occurred on 28.02.2010.

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 was engaged in the job of doing embroidery work and had an income of `10,000/- per month.

4. In the absence of any evidence with regard to the deceased's

income, the Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of an unskilled worker i.e. `5278/- per month, added 50% thereof on account of inflation, on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Kiran Devi v. Surjeet Yadav, II (2010) ACC 289, Kanwar Devi v. Bansal Roadways, 2008 ACJ 2182, and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Renu Devi, 2009 ACJ 1921, to compute the loss of dependency as ` 13,30,056/-.

5. The first Respondent's testimony that the deceased was doing the work of embroidery was not challenged. Therefore, the deceased's income ought to have been taken by the Claims Tribunal as per the minimum wages of a skilled worker as against an unskilled worker.

6. In Dhaneshwari & Another v. Tajeshwar Singh & Others, MAC.

APP 997/2011 decided on 19.3.2012, after noticing the Judgments of this Court in Smt. Anari Devi v. Shri Tilak Raj & Anr., II (2004) ACC 739; (2005 ACJ 1397), National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pooja & Ors., II (2006) ACC 382 (2007 ACJ 1051), Om Kumari & Ors. v. Shish Pal & Ors, 140 (2007) DLT 62, Narinder Bishal & Anr. v. Rambir Singh & Ors., MAC APP. 1007-08/2006, decided on 20.02.2008, New India Assurance Co. Ld. v. Vijay Singh MAC APP. 280/2008 decided on 09.05.2008; Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Rajni Devi & Ors. MAC APP.286/2011 decided on 06.01.2012; Smt. Gulabeeya Devi v. Mehboob Ali & Ors. MAC APP.463/2011 decided on 10.01.2012 and IFFCO TOKIO Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. v.

Rooniya Devi & Ors. MAC APP.189/2011 decided on 30.01.2012 and Division Bench Judgments of this Court in Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Kumari Lalita 22 (1982) DLT 170 (DB) and Rattan Lal Mehta v. Rajinder Kapoor & Anr. II (1996) ACC 1 (DB), this Court has held that in view of Rattan Lal Mehta (supra) increase in minimum wages cannot be given on account of future inflation.

7. In the circumstances, addition of 50% on account of inflation was not permissible.

8. Hence, considering the deceased's job of a skilled worker, the loss of dependency comes to `8,12,448/- (6448 x 3/4 x 12 x14).

9. No compensation was awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards loss of love and affection.

10. As the loss of love and affection can never be measured in terms of money. Thus, uniformity has to be adopted by the Courts while granting non-pecuniary damages. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627 granted ` 25,000/- (in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and affection. Thus, I award a sum of ` 25,000/- under this head, in addition of `10,000/- each on account of Loss to Estate, Loss of

Consortium and towards Funeral Expenses.

11. Hence, the overall compensation comes to `8,67,448/-

(8,12,448/- + 55,000/-), which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per

annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment.

12. The compensation is thus reduced from `13,55,056/- to ` 8,67,448/-.

13. The excess amount of `4,87,608/- along with the proportionate interest and the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal, shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

14. The compensation payable to Respondents No.1 to 5 shall be disbursed/held in fixed deposits in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court, New Delhi in terms of the order of the Claims Tribunal.

15. The statutory amount deposited shall also be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

16. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

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