Delhi High Court
Royal Sundaram Alliance ... vs Sanjida Begum & Ors on 15 January, 2016
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 15th January, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 462/2010
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD
..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga & Mr. Pankaj
Gupta, Advs.
versus
SANJIDA BEGUM & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. O. P. Mannie, Adv. for R to
11
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The insurance company is in appeal questioning the award of
compensation granted by the motor accident claims tribunal ("the
tribunal") by judgment dated 22.04.2010, on a petition under Section
166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the
MV Act") registered as suit no.390/09, on the ground that the income of
Mohd. Ishtiaq (the deceased), on account of whose death in motor
vehicular accident on 06.08.2009 the claim petition was filed, has been
wrongly assessed as ₹ 12,500/- per month and that in absence of formal
or strict proof about level of income, the tribunal should have computed
compensation on the basis of the minimum wages which, during the
relevant period, were @ ₹4377/- per month for skilled workers.
2. Though in the appeal certain other grounds were also pleaded, at
the hearing, it has been pressed restricted to the above issue only.
3. Heard both sides. Record perused.
4. Learned tribunal in the impugned judgment has set out the
reasoning for computing monthly income of the deceased @ ₹ 12,500/-
per month in the following words:
"As per PW1, the deceased was working as self employed dye
maker and earning Rs.20,000/- per month out of which he was
spending Rs.15,000/- per month on household expenses including
the educational expenses of the children. However, no proof
either of employment of the deceased or his income was brought
on record. As regards, educational certificates of the unmarried
daughters of the deceased i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 to Ex.PW-1/4 are
concerned, they only show that she was studying in the school and
also doing a diploma course in software programming. However,
the expenses on her education have not been established. Ex.PW-
1/5 is the provisional receipt issued in the name of Mehjabeen
Khan which shows that she had been enrolled for some
Government Sector course. What kind of course, she was
pursuing is not elucidated, while Ex.PW-1/6 and Ex.PW-1/7 are
only her mark sheets. The fee receipts Ex.PW-1/8 and Ex.PW-1/9
in the name of Mohd. Ishtiyak for the month of July and August
2009 showRs.500/- were being incurred for his tuition fees.
Again Ex.PW-1/10 and Ex.PW-1/11 are education certificates of
petitioner Rehmat and Mohd. Ishtiyak which did not establish the
monthly expenses on their education. However, PW-3 has
established that petitioner Rehmat and Mohd. Saleem had joined
his institute for pursuing hardware networking courses and that
Rs.3,000/- per month had been paid for three months and after
three months, they left the course in between. Electricity bill and
water bill is admittedly not in the name of the deceased. From the
documents that had been brought on record, one thing stands
proved that the unmarried children of the deceased were pursuing
their further professional course for which Rehmat and Mohd.
Saleem were incurring the expenses of ₹3,000/- per month.
However, it was admitted by PW-1 that Mohd. Saleem and
Rehmat were now working and therefore it does not stand
established convincingly that the entire expenditure was being
borne by the deceased. However, keeping in view the entire facts
and circumstances of the case and that petitioner no.2 to 7 were
unmarried, it can reasonably be assumed that the entire
educational expenses of the minor children would be borne by the
deceased, though he would be contributing in part for the
education/coaching of major sons also. From the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, it would be reasonable to presume that
deceased was having monthly income of about ₹12,500/- per
month."
5. On careful assessment, I find no error in the view taken by the
tribunal. Whilst it is true that the claimants failed to come up with any
formal proof about the actual income, I agree with the submissions of
the learned counsel appearing on their behalf that there cannot be a
thumb rule that in all cases where strict proof of income is not
forthcoming, the tribunal or the court will be left with no option but to
go by the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant point of time. The
facts and circumstances brought out would have to be seen in entirety.
It has been proved on record that the family of the deceased included the
widow and six minor children, besides four daughters already married
and settled in their respective matrimonial homes. The evidence also
clearly showed that the deceased was concerned about the proper
settlement of his children in appropriate avocations with which objective
he had arranged for their proper education in various institutes. Thus,
he is shown to have been investing in their education by arranging for
payments of the requisite fee to be paid. The expenses incurred towards
such pursuits by the deceased also reflect that the earnings that would
have been coming his way as a self employed dye maker could not
possibly be so low as at the level of minimum wages.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances, the appeal is found devoid
of substance and accordingly dismissed.
7. The statutory amount, if deposited, be refunded.
8. By order dated 09.08.2010 on CM no.12984/10, 50 % of the
award amount was released in terms of the impugned award, the balance
having been kept in fixed deposit in nationalized bank through Registrar
General of this court. The balance amount with accrued up-to-date
interest shall be now released by the Registrar General to the claimants
in terms of the impugned award.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 15, 2016/ssc
