Delhi High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Maya Devi And Ors. on 11 September, 2013
Author: Suresh Kait
R~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 11th September, 2013
+ MAC.APP. 260/2006
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
versus
MAYA DEVI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv.
for R1 to R5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award
dated 06.12.2005, whereby the ld. Tribunal has granted a
compensation for a sum of Rs.10,85,000/- with interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of actual
payment.
2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has mainly argued on the ground
that the claimant has claimed that the deceased was working as a
driver-cum-conductor-cum-helper on RTV bus and was earning
Rs.5,000/- as an employee and Rs.3,000 to Rs.3,500/- per month from
a Dairy (Milk Business).
3. He further submitted that neither the claimant could prove the
salary of Rs.5,000/- nor any employment through any documentary
evidence. That apart, failed to produce any proof of earning of
Rs.3,000 to Rs.3,500/- from Dairy (Milk Business).
4. He further submitted that the ld. Tribunal has wrongly relied
upon the evidence of PW3 Satpal, who was working as RTV driver
with him and PW5 Smt. Indira, owner of the RTV bearing no.
DL-1VA-2005.
5. Ld. Counsel further submits that by considering the income of
Rs.5,000/- of the deceased, ld. Tribunal has granted 50% future
prospects. Thus, the compensation has been granted for a sum of
Rs. 10,85,000/-. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a case
of Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. delivered in
Civil Appeal No. 4646 of 2009 on 02.04.2013
6. On perusal of record, it is emerged that PW3 Satpal has stated
that the deceased was working as a driver with him on the RTV of
Smt. Indira (PW5). He was getting salary of Rs.5,000/- per month.
PW3 further deposed that Smt. Indira is his cousin sister and she
never took any receipt from him while paying the salary.
7. PW5, Smt. Indira deposed that she was the owner of RTV
bearing no. DL-1VA-2005. She is illiterate and all the records of
maintenance of RTV and income were maintained by her husband.
She further stated that in the month of August, 2004, she had
employed two drivers, namely Pawan and Satpal for her RTV, to
whom she was paying a salary of Rs.5,000/- each.
8. From the statement of PW2, it is established that deceased was
working as an RTV driver. The testimony of co-driver (PW3) and
employer of the deceased (PW5) established that the deceased was
working with Smt. Indira (PW5) owner of RTV. The claimants could
not place any proof on record or examine any witness to prove that he
was earning Rs.3,000 to Rs.3,500 per month from Dairy (Milk
Business). As deposed by the claimants, the deceased was working
from 6 am to 8 pm. Therefore, he had hardly any time to step into the
business of milk. Therefore, the ld. Tribunal has rightly assessed the
monthly income of deceased as Rs.5,000/-.
9. Moreover, the appellant failed to produce any documentary
proof contrary to whatever established by the claimants or examine
any witness to rebut their deposition before the trial court or this
court.
10. As the issue of 50% future prospects is concerned, the accident
took place in 2004 and the award was passed in 2005. Moreover, this
issue has recently been decided by the Apex Court in the case of
Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563.
Therefore, keeping in view the dictum of Rajesh (Supra) I do not find
any discrepancy in the impugned award passed by the ld. Tribunal.
11. Consequently, the balance compensation amount be released in
favour of the respondents / claimants in terms of the award dated
06.12.2005 passed by the ld. Tribunal.
12. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed with no order as to
costs.
13. Statutory amount be also released in favour of the appellant.
SURESH KAIT, J
SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
Jg
