New India Assurance Co Ltd. vs Poonam Devi & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 1250 Del

$~12
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Judgment delivered on: 7th March, 2014

+      MAC.APP. 392/2012

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD.                   ..... Appellant
                      Represented by: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Adv.

                           versus
POONAM DEVI & ORS                                         ..... Respondents
                                    Represented by: Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey,
                                    Adv. for R1 to R6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 17.02.2012, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for an amount of Rs.19,31,488/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of the realization of the amount.

2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that Ld. Tribunal erred in not appreciating the fact that deceased was in a private job and there was no pleadings and evidence to show the future prospects. He submits that on the date of accident, deceased was 31 years of age, despite that Ld. Tribunal added 50% in his actual income for computing the loss of dependency which is contrary to the dictum of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 121, further affirmed by the Full Bench of the Apex

Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65.

3. Ld. Counsel further submits that Ld. Tribunal erred in relying upon the salary slip of the deceased in the absence of claimants having examined any witness from the employer of the deceased. Since, the deceased was working in a Private Company, therefore, it was necessary to summon witness from the employer of the deceased in order to prove his income. However, the claimants have failed to do so. In such eventuality, Ld. Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased as per the Minimum Wages Act applicable to unskilled person on the date of accident.

4. As far as the issue of future prospects is concerned, this issue has been dealt by this court in the case bearing MACA No.846/2011 titled as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors., while relying upon the dictum of the Full Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 56.

5. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 31 years on the date of accident and Ld. Tribunal has added 50% in his actual towards future prospects.

6. Keeping in view the dictum of Rajesh (Supra) and the view taken by this court in the case of Angrez Singh (Supra), I do not find any substance in the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the appellant on this issue. Same is accordingly failed.

7. As far as the issue of salary being considered by the Ld. Tribunal is concerned, PW2 Sh. Pradeep Jha, Accounts Manager of M/s. Vinty Implex

Pvt. Ltd. has proved the appointment letter and salary certificate of the deceased Satrughan Sahni, which are Ex.PW2/1 and PW2/2. In cross- examination by counsel for respondent no. 7 & 8, i.e., driver and owner of the offending vehicle, PW2 deposed that he was working in the above noted Company since 15.04.2006. He deposed that deceased was VIIIth Pass and was not technically qualified. He also stated that he did not bring the Attendance Register and any other record except the salary certificate of the deceased to show the factum of the employment of the deceased. Further stated, that he can produce the same.

8. In Para 6 of the impugned award it is recorded that the respondents have led no evidence or examined any witness to rebut the testimony of PW1, wife of the deceased and PW2 the person appeared on behalf of the employer of the deceased.

9. It is not the case where merely salary certificate was produced before the Trial Court and the Trial Court has accepted the same. In the present case, by the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 have proved the salary certificate of the deceased and his appointment letter. Therefore, there was no occasion before the Ld. Tribunal not to rely upon the same.

10. In view of above noted facts, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal.

11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

12. The statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant and the balance compensation amount, if any, be released in favour of the respondents / claimants on taking steps by them.

CM. NO. 6683/2012 With the dismissal of the instant appeal, instant application has become infructuous and dismissed as such.

SURESH KAIT, J MARCH 07, 2014 jg