Delhi High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Dropti Devi And Ors. on 1 November, 2013
Author: Suresh Kait
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.A. 1100/2006
Judgment delivered on: 1st November, 2013
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.Pankaj Seth, Adv.
Versus
SMT. DROPTI DEVI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J.
1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant / insurance
company assailing the impugned award dated 28.10.2006 passed in
Suit no. 676/2000, whereby the ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation
for a sum of Rs.10,48,280/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of the petition till the date of its realization in favour of
the respondents / claimants.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.02.1998 deceased Ram
Manohar was going on foot along with injured Subhash. At about
10.57 PM when they reached near D-195, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-I at S.A. Road, New Delhi, all of a sudden a truck trailor no.
HR-38A-8750 came at a very fast speed which was being driven by
respondent no. 6 in a rash and negligent manner in contravention of the
traffic rules and hit the deceased and one subhash with great force. As
a result of the forceful impact, the deceased fell down on the road and
sustained fatal injuries. The other person Subhash as noted above also
sustained grievous injuries.
3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that ld.
Tribunal assessed the average monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.8,320/- in an arbitrary manner for the purpose of assessing the loss
of dependency.
4. Ld. Counsel further argued that the ld. Tribunal also erred in the
assessment of gross salary of the deceased that at the time of
superannuation the monthly salary would be about Rs.10,000/-. He
submitted that keeping in view the evidence on record, ld. Tribunal
should have considered the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.6,634.50/-.
5. To strengthen his arguments, ld. Counsel has relied upon a case
of Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta & Ors., 2006 3 SCC 242
wherein the Apex Court has held that dependency has to be worked out
on the basis of earning of deceased at the time of accident.
6. Ld. Counsel submitted that ld. Tribunal should have considered
the loss of dependency at Rs.4,423/- by taking monthly income as
Rs.6,634.50/- at the time of death of deceased after deducting 1/3 rd out
of the same towards personal expenses of the deceased and should
have accordingly awarded compensation by applying the multiplier
of 15.
7. I have heard ld. Counsel for the appellant.
8. On perusal of the evidence on record, it is revealed that PW1 has
deposed that the deceased was 40 years old at the time of accident as
per School Leaving Certificate Ex.P1. He was working as a Messenger
in a Private Company known as Educational CIL at NOIDA. His
income was Rs.6,000/- to Rs.6,500/- per month. He was the only
earning member in the family and he used to give Rs.5,000/- per month
for running the household expenses. He was supporting a large family
comprising of his wife, three children namely, Bindu, Kusum, Uma
Shankar and his mother Smt. Pratapi Devi.
9. The testimony of PW1 has been corroborated by PW2, who
produced the salary record of the deceased. Ex.P1 is the employer
certificate of the deceased and Ex.P2 is the salary certificate for the
month of February, 1998, i.e., the last drawn salary of the deceased.
10. It is established from Ex.P1 that the deceased had joined as a
Messenger with Educational Consultant Limited from 01.03.1984 and
was due for retirement on 21.12.2015. Ex.P2 established that the
monthly gross salary of deceased was Rs.6,634.50/-.
11. PW2 has also placed on record the Office Order dated
08.05.2000 regarding the revision of pay package for executives and
non-executives. He deposed that had he been continuing in service, he
would have earned promotion as Sr. Messenger.
12. Moreover, Office Order dated 08.05.2000 Ex.P3 revealed that
pay scale of the messengers was revised. As per the said revised
scale, the basic pay of messengers was in the scale of Rs.4,600 to
Rs.7,130/-.
13. Ld. Tribunal has opined that presuming there was no scope of
promotion as per Ex.P3, the basic pay of the deceased would have
enhanced to Rs.7,130/- per month during the course of time.
14. Undisputedly, the age of the deceased was 40 years on the date
of accident and thus, he would have been in job for another 18 years if
not died in the accident. With the basic pay of Rs.4,930/-, the gross
income of the deceased per month was Rs.6,654.50/- per month. On
the same basis with the basic salary of Rs.7,130/- at the time of
superannuation, the deceased certainly would have earned the gross
salary of about Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, the average monthly income
of the deceased has been assessed by the ld. Tribunal as (Rs.6,635 +
Rs.10,000) / 2 = Rs.8317.50/- (rounded off to Rs.8,320/-).
15. The deceased left behind his widow wife, three children and his
mother. Accordingly, ld. Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal
expenses and applied the multiplier of 15.
16. Ld. Tribunal has rightly applied the concept of 'just
compensation' in the process of assessment. Therefore, keeping the
above discussion into view and material on record, I do not find any
discrepancy in the award passed by the ld. Tribunal.
17. Therefore, finding no merit in the instant appeal, same is
accordingly dismissed.
18. Vide order dated 20.12.2006, 75% of the award amount was
directed to be released in favour of the respondents / claimants.
Therefore, the balance compensation amount be released in favour of
the respondents / claimants.
19. Statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant.
CM No. 17690/2006 (for stay)
With the dismissal of the instant appeal itself, instant application
has become infructuous and dismissed as such.
SURESH KAIT, J
NOVEMBER 01, 2013
Jg
