Delhi High Court
Neelam Devi & Ors. vs Bikramjeet Singh & Ors. on 4 March, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 4th March, 2014
+ MAC.APP. No.972/2012
NEELAM DEVI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Represented by: Mr.O.P. Mannie and Mr. Manish
Maini, Advocates.
Versus
BIKRAMJEET SINGH & ORS. ...... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Ruchir Mishra, Mr.Mukesh
Kumar Tiwari, Mr. Sanjiv
Kumar Saxena and Mr. Ramneek
Mishra, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award
dated 02.05.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation
as under:-
"1. Loss of dependency (5146X15X12) =Rs.9,26,280/-
2. Loss of Love and affection =Rs. 25,000/-
3. For funeral expenses =Rs. 10,000/-
4. Loss of estate =Rs. 10,000/-
5. Loss of Consortium =Rs. 10,000/-
_____________
Total =Rs.9,81,280/-
(Rupees Nine Lakhs Eighty One Thousand two hundred and eight
only)"
Interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum was also awarded from the date
of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued that
PW1/Smt. Neelam Devi, widow of the deceased deposed that her husband
was a Mason and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. However, the learned
Tribunal has considered his salary as Rs.5,278/- as per Minimum Wages
Act, 1948 applicable to an unskilled person as on 01.02.2010.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in
considering the salary of the deceased as an unskilled person as he was
working as a Mason. On this fact, neither any cross-examination conducted
nor any contrary witness examined by the appellant company. Therefore,
there was no occasion before the learned Tribunal not to rely upon the
testimony of PW1 and consider the salary of the deceased applicable to a
skilled person.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that on the date of the accident, the
deceased was 39-40 years old. He left behind a young widow, two minor
daughters and one minor son. Despite, the learned Tribunal has granted
Rs.25,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- each for loss of
consortium and for funeral expenses is on lower side.
5. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the
cases of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563
and Vimal Kanwal & Ors. Vs. Kishore Dan & Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 705.
In the latter case, the Apex Court has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
towards loss of love and affection for daughter and Rs.1,00,000/- each
towards loss of love and affection for the widow and mother, i.e.,
Rs.2,00,000/-, and Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents submitted that though wife of the deceased has deposed that
deceased was a Mason and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, however,
she failed to produce any cogent evidence to this effect, therefore, the
learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,278/-
applicable to an unskilled person at the relevant time as per the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that as regards the issues of non-
pecuniary damages are concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that it is the discretion of the courts to award the compensation
under these heads keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case.
In the present case, the deceased was working as a labourer having three
minor children and a young widow. Hence, taking into consideration all
these aspects, the learned Tribunal has sufficiently granted compensation for
non-pecuniary damages.
8. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties.
9. So far as the avocation of the deceased is concerned, PW1/Smt.
Neelam Devi, widow of the deceased has specifically deposed that the
deceased was a Mason and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Generally,
the labourers are engaged with one employer for a short time and not
permanently. Thereafter, they have to search for another work site,
therefore, their employment cannot be termed as 'regular', barring very few
those who work with a big establishment where work is of perennial nature.
10. In the present case, neither any cross-examination was conducted on
this issue nor any witness has been examined by the respondents to rebut the
testimony of PW1/widow of the deceased. Therefore, there was no occasion
before the learned Tribunal not to consider the salary of the deceased
applicable to a skilled person at the relevant time as per MW Act, 1948.
11. Therefore, keeping in view the evidence of PW1, I assess the monthly
income of the deceased as Rs.6,448/-, applicable to a skilled person at the
relevant time.
12. So far as the non-pecuniary damages are concerned, taking into
consideration the dictums of the Apex Court in the cases of Rajesh & Ors.
(supra) and Vimal Kanwal & Ors. (supra), justice would be met if the
compensation is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection,
Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses.
13. It is allowed accordingly.
14. In view of the above, the compensation amount comes as under:
Sl. Heads of Compensation Compensation
No. granted by ld. granted by this
Compensation Tribunal Court
1. Loss of dependency Rs.9,26,280/- Rs.11,31,624/-
2. Loss of love and Rs. 25,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
affection
3. For funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 25,000/-
4. Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/-
5. Loss of Consortium Rs. 10,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
TOTAL Rs.9,81,280/- Rs.13,66,624/-
Accordingly, the compensation is assessed as Rs.13,66,624/-.
15. Resultantly, an amount of Rs. 3,85,344/- is enhanced (Rs.13,66,624/-
- Rs.9,81,280/-).
16. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
17. Accordingly, the respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the enhanced
amount with up-to-date interest accrued thereon with the Registrar General
of this Court within a period of six weeks from today, failing which,
appellants/claimants shall be entitled for penal interest @ 12% per annum on
account of delayed payment.
18. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release the amount in
favour of the appellants/claimants proportionally in terms of the award dated
02.05.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal.
19. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
SURESH KAIT, J.
MARCH 04, 2014
sb/jg
