Royal Sundaram Alliance ... vs Jhalia Devi & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 6778 Del

$ 8
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      Date of decision: 27th November, 2012

+        MAC. APP. 571/2011

         ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD.
                                              ..... Appellant
                     Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate.

                        Versus

         JHALIA DEVI & ORS.                        ..... Respondents
                       Through:         Mr. Satender Sharma with Mr. Yudhvir
                                        Sharma, Advocates for the Respondents
                                        No.1 & 2.
                                        Mr. K. Sunil, Advocate for the
                                        Respondents No.3 & 4.

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

                                 JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `6,39,640/- awarded in favour of the Respondents No.1 and 2 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) for the death of Dharmendra Majhi @ Sanjay, a bachelor aged about 20 years.

2. The finding on negligence is not challenged by the Appellant Insurance Company. Thus, the same has attained finality.

3. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that the deceased was working as a rickshaw puller and was earning `12,000/- per month. It was stated that he (the deceased) was sending `8,000/- to his

mother in the village. The Respondents No.1 and 2(the Claimants) failed to adduce any cogent evidence with regard to the deceased's income or that he was sending an amount of `8,000/- per month to the Claimants. Thus, the Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of an unskilled worker, added 50% towards inflation, deducted 1/3 rd towards personal and living expenses to compute the loss of dependency as `6,14,640/-. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of `10,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss to estate and `5,000/- towards funeral expenses to compute the overall compensation of `6,39,640/-

4. The only contention raised by the Appellant during the course of hearing is that there should have been an addition of only 30% towards inflation as against an addition of 50% granted by the Claims Tribunal. Reliance is placed on Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Claimants urges that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable. It is stated that since the deceased was working as a rickshaw puller, the minimum wages of a skilled worker ought to have been adopted by the Claims Tribunal to compute the loss of dependency.

6. I would agree with the learned counsel for the Appellant to the extent that an addition towards inflation could have been only 30% on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Santosh Devi. Since it was proved on record that the deceased Dharmendra Majhi was working as a rickshaw puller, it would be appropriate to assess the income of the deceased on the basis of the minimum wages of a skilled worker as fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi under the Minimum Wages Act. The loss

of dependency thus comes to `5,89,201/-(`4358/- + 30% x 12 x 13 x 2/3) as against `6,14,640/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

7. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of `10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and `5,000/- towards funeral expenses. In Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627, the Supreme Court granted a sum of `25,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The trend of Superior Courts is to award a compensation of `25,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The award of compensation towards loss of love and affection is raised from `10,000/- to `25,000/-. Similarly, a compensation of `5,000/- towards funeral expenses was on the lower side. The same is raised to `10,000/-.

8. The overall compensation is recomputed as under:

Sl. Compensation under Awarded by Awarded by various heads the Claims this Court No. Tribunal

1. Loss of Financial `6,14,640/- `5,89,201/-

Dependency

2. Loss of Love & Affection ` 10,000/- ` 25,000/-

               3.       Funeral Expenses            ` 5,000/-      ` 10,000/-

               4.       Loss to Estate              ` 10,000/-     ` 10,000/-

                                            Total     ` 6,39,640/- ` 6,34,201/-

9. The compensation of `6,39,640/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal in view of the above discussion is just and reasonable.

10. The impugned judgment does not call for any interference.

Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed.

11. The compensation amount shall be disbursed/held in fixed deposit in terms of the orders passed by the Claims Tribunal.

12. Statutory amount of `25,000/-, if any, shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

13. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE NOVEMBER 27, 2012 pst