Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd ... vs Devnath Thakur & Ors. on 22 April, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on 22nd April,2015
+ MAC.APP. 508/2014
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD THROUGH:
DEPUTY MANAGER ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate.
Versus
DEVNATH THAKUR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J.
CM No.13198/2014 (for exemption)
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
Review Petition No. 367/2014 in MAC.APP. 508/2014
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks review of the order
dated 04.07.2014 passed in MAC. APP. No.508/2014.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the
petitioner/Insurance Company had filed two appeals bearing Nos. MAC.
APP. Nos.508/2014 & 510/2014, being arisen from the same award dated
07.04.2014, whereby the learned Tribunal granted compensation for a sum
of Rs.6,06,646/- and Rs.6,56,646/- in favour of Lal Chand and Devnath
Thakur ( respondent No.1 in both appeals) respectively alongwith interest at
the rate of 9% per annum for the death of their sons, namely, Pankaj Thakur
and Mohit.
3. Learned counsel submits that both the deceased were aged around 17
years and salary of both the persons was assessed at Rs.3,683/- as per the
minimum wages applicable to an unskilled labour at the relevant time.
However, this Court, vide order dated 04.07.2014 dismissed MAC. APP.
No.508/2014 and issued notice in MAC. APP. No.510/2014, both filed by
the Insurance Company.
4. Learned counsel further submits that facts of both cases were similar,
thus, the order dated 04.07.2014 is to be recalled and set aside.
5. It is not in dispute that in the case of deceased Pankaj Thakur (MAC.
APP. No.508/2014), his father, namely, Devnath Thakur (respondent No.1
therein) appeared as PW1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit had stated
that at the time of accident, the deceased was studying in 10 th class, doing
private tuitions and earning around Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month.
Nothing came in cross-examine to dispute the fact that the deceased was not
a student of 10th class. Since PW1 failed to produce any proof regarding
earning of the deceased, the learned Tribunal keeping in view the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.3,683/- applicable to an unskilled labour at the relevant time.
6. So far as case of deceased Mohit is concerned (MAC. APP.
No.510/2014), his father, namely, Lal Chand (respondent No.1 therein)
appeared as PW1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit had deposed that
at the time of accident, the deceased was studying in 9 th class, however, the
said PW1 did not depose that deceased Mohit was earning some amount at
the time when he met with a fatal accident.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that in Suit No.501/12/08 filed for
death of deceased Pankaj Thakur, the claimants deposed that deceased was
studying in 10th standard and was earning Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per
month. Accordingly, while granting compensation, the learned Tribunal
assessed his monthly income at Rs.3,683/- as per the minimum wages
applicable to an unskilled labour at the relevant time. Whereas in Suit
No.53/11/08 filed for death of deceased Mohit, no plea was taken by the
claimants that deceased Mohit was earning some amount. Despite, the
learned Tribunal took his income as Rs.3,683/- per month, being minimum
wages applicable to an unskilled labour at the prevalent time. Therefore,
keeping in view the incongruent facts of both the cases noted above, while
issuing the notice in the latter case, award dated 07.04.2014 was stayed and
50% of the awarded amount was released in favour of the claimants.
8. At the cost of repetition, it is noted that facts and pleas of both the
cases were different, therefore, vide order dated 04.07.2014, this Court
dismissed the appeal bearing MAC. APP. No.508/2014 and issued notice in
MAC. APP. No.510/2014.
9. In view of the facts recorded above, I do not find any substance in the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that facts and issues
involved in both the cases are similar, therefore, same orders should have
been passed by this Court. Thus, the same is rejected at the threshold.
10. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to vary the order dated
04.07.2014. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed.
CM No.13197/2014 (for stay)
With the dismissal of the review petition itself, the instant application
has become infructuous. The same is dismissed accordingly.
SURESH KAIT, J.
APRIL 22, 2015
sb
