Delhi High Court
Afsana Begam & Ors vs Manjit Singh & Ors (The New India ... on 16 August, 2017
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 16th August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 115/2017
AFSANA BEGAM & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Partap Singh, Advocate
with Ms. Sinthiya Bhatia,
Advocate
versus
MANJIT SINGH & ORS (THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE
CO LTD) ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Anshum Jain, Advocate for
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Saeed Khan, aged 29 years, suffered injuries in a motor
vehicular accident that occurred on 15.06.2014 due to negligent
driving of bus bearing registration No.HR-46D-1190, admittedly
insured against third party risk with the third respondent (insurer) and
died in the consequence. The appellants, they being the members of
the family dependent upon him, instituted accident claim case (Suit
No.842/2014) seeking compensation.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the tribunal), by its
judgment dated 19.05.2016, accepted the claim for compensation and
awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.16,43,762/- and directed the
insurer to pay the same with interest @ nine per cent (9%) per annum,
calculating thus:-
Sl.No. Head Amount in (Rs.)
1. Loss of financial dependency 13,08,762/-
2. Loss of love and affection to each child 2,00,000/-
(two children)
3. Loss of love and affection to father 50,000/-
4. Loss of companionship to wife 50,000/-
5. Loss of Estate 10,000/-
6. Funeral expenses 25,000/-
Total 16,43,762/-
3. The loss of dependency was worked out on the basis of assumed
earnings of Rs.8554/-, it being the minimum wages for unskilled
worker at the relevant point of time, from which one-fourth (1/4th) was
deducted towards personal and living expenses and the multiplier of
17 was applied.
4. The appellants seek enhancement of the compensation
submitting that by evidence they had proved that the deceased was
earning his livelihood as a painter and, therefore, minimum wages of
skilled worker should have been adopted as the bench mark. It is also
their grievance that non-pecuniary heads of damages awarded by the
tribunal are inadequate.
5. The contention that the claimants had proved that the deceased
was earning his livelihood as a painter must be accepted. The evidence
of the first appellant, appearing as PW-1, to this effect remained
unchallenged. But then, it not having been shown that the deceased
had undergone any special training to work for gain as a painter, it will
not be proper to apply the minimum wages of a skilled worker. Given
the experience that he would have gained over the period, the
minimum wages of semi-skilled worker would be the appropriate
bench mark.
6. Since the accident had occurred on 15.06.2014, the minimum
wages of semi-skilled worker at Rs.9438/- are assumed to be the
income. Thus, the loss of dependency is re-calculated as (9438/- x 3/4
x 12 x 17) Rs.14,44,014/- rounded off to Rs.14,45,000/-.
7. The amount awarded under the non-pecuniary heads is not in
sync with the dispensation by this court. Following the view taken in
MAC.APP.No.160/2015 Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd v. Usha
decided by this court on 05.05.2016, non-pecuniary damages in the
sum of Rs.1,50,000/- each towards loss of love & affection and
towards loss of consortium and Rs.50,000/- each towards loss of estate
and funeral expense are added. Hence, the total compensation payable
in the case comes to (Rs.14,45,000/- + 1,50,000/- + 1,50,000/- +
50,000/- + 50,000/- ) Rs.18,45,000/-.
8. The award is increased accordingly. It shall carry interest as
levied by the tribunal.
9. The insurer is directed to satisfy the enhanced award by
requisite deposit with the tribunal within thirty days, whereupon the
same shall be released to the claimants in terms of the apportionment
ordered by the impugned judgment.
10. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 16, 2017
vk
