Delhi High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Smt. Shyama Devi @ Pushpa & 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. 606/2011
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Atul Nanda, Sr. Advocate
Ms.Rameeza Hakeem,
Mr. Khalid Arshad,
Mr.Rajat Brar and
Ms. Priyadarshi Gopal,
Advocates.
versus
SMT. SHYAMA DEVI @ PUSHPA & ORS...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sartaj Ahmed, Adv. with
Mr. Surender Kumar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of ` 12,04,112/-
awarded for the death of Kare Din, who died in an accident
which occurred on 21.05.2010.
2. The finding on negligence is not challenged by the Appellant
Insurance Company.
3. The deceased was aged about 43 years on the date of the
accident. During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal), it was claimed that the deceased
was an illiterate person and was working as a labourer. No
proof of income of the deceased was filed nor any income was
claimed. The Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of an
unskilled worker i.e. `5278/- per month, added 50% towards
inflation, deducted 1/5th towards the personal and living
expenses and took the multiplier as 14 to compute the loss of
dependency as ` 10,64,112/-.
4. The only ground of challenge is that 50% addition on account of
future inflation should not have been given.
5. 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.
6. Thus, the addition on account of inflation could not have been
given by the Claims Tribunal.
7. Under the circumstances, the loss of dependency comes to
`7,09,363/- (5278 x 4/5 x 12 x14).
8. In the absence of any challenge to the award of the sums of
` 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, ` 25,000/-
towards funeral expenses, `10,000/- towards loss of consortium
and ` 5,000/- towards loss to estate, I would not interfere with
the same.
9. Hence, the overall compensation comes to `8,49,363/-
(7,09,363/- + 1,40,000/-), which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of
payment.
10. The compensation is thus reduced from `12,04,112/- to `
8,49,363/-.
11. The excess amount of `3,54,749/- 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.
12. If the excess amount has been released, the Insurance Company
shall be entitled to apply for restitution as there is no order for
stay of the execution of the award.
13. The statutory amount deposited shall be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
14. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 26, 2012
vk
