Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Kusma Devi & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 2069 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Decided on: 26th March, 2012
+       MAC.APP. 238/2010

        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

        KUSMA DEVI & ORS.                      ..... Respondents
                     Through:           Mr. O.P. Mannie, Adv.

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

                          JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of ` 6,69,200/-

awarded for the death of Ram Chandra, who died in an accident which occurred on 06.06.2007.

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 Ram Chandra was working as a Security Guard with M/s. Devine

Security Services, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi and was getting a salary of ` 4,000/- per month.

4. The Respondents (the Claimants) did not lead any evidence to prove the deceased's future prospects. In fact, they did not lead any evidence as to the deceased's employment.

5. In the absence of any evidence with regard to the deceased's employment on his income, the Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of an unskilled worker i.e. ` 3470/- per month, added 50% towards inflation, deducted 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses and took the multiplier as 13 to compute the loss of dependency as ` 6,14,200/-.

6. The age of the deceased, the number of family members and the multiplier has not been disputed by the Appellant. The only ground of challenge is that 50% addition on account of future inflation should not have been given.

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. Thus, the addition on account of inflation could not have been given by the Claims Tribunal.

9. Under the circumstances, the loss of dependency comes to ` 4,09,500/- (3500/- x 3/4 x 12 x 13).

10. No other ground has been raised.

11. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of ` 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, `5,000/- towards loss to estate, `35,000/- towards love and affection and `5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Since the compensation awarded under the non- pecuniary heads has not been challenged, the overall compensation comes to ` 4,64,500/- (4,09,500/- + 55,000/-).

12. The compensation is thus reduced from ` 6,69,200/- to

` 4,64,500/-.

13. The excess amount of `2,04,700/- alongwith 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 award amount along with proportionate interest and the interest accrued during the pendency of the Appeal shall be released in favour of Respondents No.1 to 7 as under after excluding the interim award of ` 50,000/- :

1. Smt. Kusma Devi (Respondent No.1)= 2,49,500/-

2. Ms. Renu (Respondent No.2) = ` 50,000/-

3. Ms. Poonam (Respondent No.3) = ` 50,000/-

4. Sh. Jitender (Respondent No.4) = ` 50,000/-

5. Smt. Pramila (married daughter) = ` 5,000/-

6. Smt. Gayatri Devi (married daughter)= ` 5,000/-

7. Smt. Rima Devi (married daughter) = ` 5,000/-

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

16. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

17. No costs.

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