Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Mohd Ahad & Ors on 26 March, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 26th March, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 865/2010
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. L.K.Tyagi, Adv.
versus
MOHD AHAD & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Popli, Adv. for R-1
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `8,37,530/-
awarded for the death of Adam Ali, who was a bachelor and
aged about 16 years on the date of the accident which occurred
on 29.05.2010.
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 working
as a labourer and was earning ` 6,000/- 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% towards
future inflation, deducted 1/2 towards the personal and living
expenses and took the multiplier as 15 to compute the loss of
dependency as ` 7,12,530/-.
5. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that in view
of the Division Bench judgment in Rattan Lal Mehta v.
Rajinder Kapoor & Anr. II (1996) ACC 1 (DB) increase in the
minimum wages on account of future inflation was not
permissible as the inflation is inbuilt in the multiplier.
6. It is urged that the compensation of `1,00,000/- awarded
towards Loss of Love and Affection is on the higher side.
7. 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.
8. The Respondents (the Claimants) therefore were entitled to loss
of dependency only on the basis of minimum wages of an
unskilled worker, which were ` 5278/- per month on the date of
the accident.
9. Hence, the loss of dependency comes to `4,75,020/- (5278/- x
1/2 x 12 x15).
10. The compensation of `1,00,000/- towards loss of Love and
Affection and `25,000/- towards funeral expenses, in the
absence of any evidence was on the higher side.
11. 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 only ` 25,000/- (in total to
all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and affection.
Thus, I would reduce the compensation under this head to `
25,000/- only.
12. On adding notional sums of ` 25,000/- towards Loss of Love
and Affection, `10,000/- towards Loss to Estate and `10,000/-
towards funeral expenses, the overall compensation comes to
`5,20,020/- (4,75,020/- + 45,000/-), which shall carry interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the
date of payment.
13. The compensation is thus reduced from `8,37,530/- to
`5,20,020/-.
14. The excess amount of `3,17,510/- 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.
15. The compensation payable to Respondents No.1 and 2 shall be
released in terms of the order of the Claims Tribunal.
16. The statutory amount deposited shall be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
17. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 26, 2012
vk
