United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Basanti & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 3163 Del

$~17
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Judgment delivered on: 23rd July, 2013

+                          MAC. APPEAL No. 6/2013
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.                          ..... Appellant
                           Through:        Ms.Suman Bagga, Advocate.


                     Versus


BASANTI & ORS.                                    ..... Respondents
                           Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal and Ms.
                           Mamta     Bhardwaj,       Advocates      for
                           Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/Claimants.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 07.09.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a total compensation of Rs.29,61,944/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum in favour of the respondents/claimants.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company has argued that the respondents/claimants have not produced any proof qua the salary of the deceased, however, the learned Tribunal has considered the same as Rs.20,000/- per month.

3. She further submitted that PW2, Dr.Nikhilesh Pratap Singh has deposed before the learned Tribunal that the deceased was their domestic servant and had been serving them for about 30 to 35 years and gradually his salary was enhanced and reached to Rs.20,000/- per month. But, he has not produced any proof thereof.

4. I note, in his evidence by way of affidavit, the said PW2 has stated that deceased Sh.Bijender Singh was appointed by his father in the year 1985 as a domestic helper. At that time he was a minor and he continued with them till his accident in 2011. Deceased served their family for 20 years. The deceased was a valuable person to their family and they always considered him like a family member. He specifically stated that at the time of the accident, the deceased was getting Rs.20,000/- per month, which was to be paid by his father in cash mode. Also stated that Sh. Amarjeet, their employee, regarding salary of the deceased, made statement to police on their instructions.

5. Dr. Nikhilesh Pratap Singh, PW2 was cross-examined by learned counsel for the Insurance Company, wherein he stated that the deceased was their family servant working since 1980. Payment was made on various occasions before him. Generally, payment of salary was made by his mother and the same was paid at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month.

6. He also deposed in the cross-examination that in the year 1980, salary of the deceased was less, but gradually it increased with the passage of time due to increase of responsibility which had been put

on the deceased as he grew as a family member. Subsequently, when the deceased brought his family to Delhi, with intention to retain him in their employment as they were receiving sufficient comfort from his services as his services were outstanding, accordingly, they increased the salary of the deceased.

7. Keeping in mind the fact that how deceased was useful and helpful to employer, payment of Rs.20,000/- per month towards salary of the deceased cannot be considered to be on higher side. Moreover, Dr.Nikhilesh, PW2 cannot be disbelieved.

8. It is pertinent to mention here that the employer himself came in the witness box and deposed that they used to give Rs.20,000/- per month to the deceased till he met with an accident, therefore, on this Issue, I do not find any discrepancy in considering Rs.20,000/- per month towards salary of the deceased by the Tribunal. Moreover, the appellant/Insurance Company has not produced any witness or material contrary to the statement of PW2.

9. Hence, I find no merit in the instant appeal. The same is dismissed accordingly.

10. Pursuant to order dated 15.03.2013, 40% of the awarded amount has been released in favour of the respondents/claimants.

11. As the appeal has been disposed of, the Branch Manager, UCO Bank, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi is directed to release the balance deposited amount with upto date interest in favour of the

respondents/claimants in terms of the order dated 07.09.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal on taking steps by them.

12. Consequently, the statutory amount be also released in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company.

SURESH KAIT, J.

JULY 23, 2013 Sb/jg