The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Hajra Khatoon & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 2999 Del

$~15
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Date of decision: 15th April, 2015
+        MAC.APP. 287/2013
         THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.        ..... Appellant
                       Through Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate

                            versus

         HAJRA KHATOON & ORS.                    ..... Respondents
                      Through   Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate for
                                Respondent no.1.
         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The only ground of challenge in the instant appeal is with regard to the

addition of 30% towards future prospects.

2. During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the

Claims Tribunal), it was claimed that deceased Barkat Ali was

employed as a driver with Ataullah Ansari and was getting a salary of

Rs.7,000/- per month. In the absence of any documentary evidence

with regard to the deceased's employment and income, the Claims

Tribunal took the minimum wages of a skilled worker i.e. Rs.4,000/-

per month and made an addition of 30% towards future

prospects/inflation to compute the loss of dependency at Rs.5,82,400/-

3. I have the Trial Court record before me. The employer Ataullah

Ansari had entered the witness box as PW-3 to depose about the

deceased's employment with him in his bakery as a driver. It may

further be noted that the accident took place while the deceased was

driving Max Bajaj bearing no.DL-1CJ-8891. Thus, it was established

on record that the deceased was working as a driver on a commercial

vehicle. The accident took place on 08.06.2009. Salary of a driver

working on a commercial vehicle was not less than Rs.5,200/- per

month which was taken by the Claims Tribunal to compute the loss of

dependency. In view of this, the compensation awarded, considering

the loss of dependency on an income of Rs.5,200/- cannot be faulted.

4. The appeal therefore, has to fail; the same is accordingly dismissed.

5. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

6. The statutory amount, if any, deposited shall be released to the

Appellant Insurance Company.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE APRIL 15, 2015 pst