National Insurance Co Ltd vs Uday Chandra Mishra & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 5789 Del

$~11
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   Date of decision: 26th September, 2012
+        MAC APP. 300/2012

         NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD                      ..... Appellant
                              Through:   Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Adv.
                     versus
         UDAY CHANDRA MISHRA & ORS       ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Prabhat K.C., Adv.
                             for R1 & R2

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

                              JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `6,30,000/-

awarded in favour of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the death of Sanatan Mishra aged 18 years, who died in a motor accident which occurred on 28.4.2007.

2. During the enquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that the deceased was earning `4,000/- per month. In the absence of any evidence with regard to the deceased's income the Claims Tribunal took into consideration the minimum wages of a semiskilled worker, deducted 50%

personal and living expenses and applied a multiplier of 18 to compute the loss of dependency.

3. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:

i. In the absence of any proof of the deceased's income or his qualification the Claims Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the minimum wages of an unskilled worker instead of a semi skilled worker.

ii. There was no evidence with regard to the deceased's future prospects, addition of 50% towards future prospects was not justified.

iii. Although the Claims Tribunal in para 19 observed that the age of the parents would be relevant for adopting the multiplier, but in para 21 of the judgment the multiplier as per the age of the deceased was applied.

4. The Appeal must succeed on all the three grounds.

5. Since there was no evidence with regard to the deceased's income and no evidence with regard to the work being performed by the deceased the Claims Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the minimum wages of an unskilled worker to compute the loss of dependency.

6. It is well settled that addition on account of future prospects is to be made only when there is evidence with regard to the

same (Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidya Dhar Dutta & Ors, (2006) 3 SCC 242 and Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121). Admittedly, in this case there was no evidence with regard to the future prospects. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to get an addition of 30% in the deceased's income on the basis of the Supreme Court report in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559.

7. As observed earlier in para 19 of the impugned judgment the Claims Tribunal held that the appropriate multiplier in case of the death of a bachelor would be as per the deceased's parents. However, while actually applying the multiplier the Claims Tribunal took into consideration the age of the deceased. It is laid down by a three Judge Bench decision in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 362, and New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 1 that the multiplier shall be as per the age of the deceased or the claimant whichever is higher. In the instant case, the age of the deceased's mother was 34 years and the minimum wages of an unskilled worker were `3470/-; the loss of dependency ought to be `4,33,056/- (3470+30% x 50% x12 x 16).

8. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would be further entitled to a sum of `25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and `10,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss to estate.

9. Thus, the overall compensation comes to `4,78,056/-

including the interim compensation of `50,000/-.

10. 60% of the compensation awarded shall be payable to Respondent No.2, the deceased's mother and 40% to Respondent No.1, the deceased's father.

11. The compensation awarded shall be disbursed/ held in a fixed deposit in favour of the Respondents in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal. By an order dated 21.3.2012, execution of the award was stayed subject to the deposit of 75% of the award amount. The balance amount along with upto date interest shall be deposited in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court branch within a period of six weeks.

12. The Appeal is allowed in the above terms.

13. Statutory deposit of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company after the balance amount is deposited.

G.P. MITTAL, J.

SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 mm