Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mohan Devi & Ors. on 24 July, 2017
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision:24th July, 2017
+ MAC.APP.58/2015 & CM 879/2015
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Pankaj Seth, Advocate
versus
MOHAN DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the impugned award whereby
compensation of Rs.6,96,889/- has been awarded to respondents no.1 to 6.
2. The accident dated 25th June, 2008 resulted in the death of Nathi Lal.
The deceased was aged 51 years at the time of the accident and was survived
by his widow, four sons and a daughter who filed the application for
compensation before the Claims Tribunal. According to the claimants, the
deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. However, the Claims Tribunal
took minimum wages of Rs.4,057/- per month, added 15% towards future
prospects, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses and applied multiplier
of 11 to compute the loss of financial dependency as Rs.4,61,889/-. The
Claims Tribunal added Rs.1 lakh towards loss of love and affection, Rs.1
lakh towards consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/-
towards funeral expenses. The total compensation awarded is Rs.6,96,889/-
along with interest @ 9% per annum.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing of
the appeal that future prospects of 15% should not have been taken into
consideration.
4. This Court is of the view that it is not mandatory to resort to minimum
wages in each and every case. Reference in this regard may be made to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.
Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, AIR 2012 SC 100 in which 59
persons died in Uphaar tragedy and the Supreme Court granted
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the victims of above 20 years of age and
Rs.7,50,000/- to the victims below 20 years of age on the basis of multiplier
method. The Supreme Court applied the multiplier of 15 and deducted 1/3 rd
towards the personal expenses. The income of the victims aged more than 20
years was assumed to be Rs.8,333/- per month and that of victims aged less
than 20 years was assumed to be Rs.6,249/- per month. The computation of
the compensation awarded by the Supreme Court would be as under :-
For victims aged more than 20 years:-
(Rs.8,333/- less 1/3rd)x 12 x 15 = Rs.10 lakhs.
For victims aged less than 20 years:-
(Rs.6249/- less 1/3rd) x 15 = Rs.7.5 lakhs.
5. It is relevant to note that the Uphaar tragedy took place on 13th June,
1997 and the minimum wages at the relevant time were less than Rs.2600/-
but neither the Division Bench of this Court nor Supreme Court resorted to
minimum wages to compute the compensation although neither the income
nor the occupation of the victims was proved.
6. In the present case, the occupation of the deceased had been proved as
a driver. PW-1 deposed before the Court that the deceased was earning
Rs.5,000/-. Applying the principles laid down in Uphaar tragedy, the
income of the deceased should have been taken as Rs.5,000/- per month
whereas the Claims Tribunal has taken the income as Rs. 4665.55 per month
(Rs.4057/- + 15%) which is less than Rs.5,000/- per month. The amount
awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and does not
warrant any interference.
7. There is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. The
pending application is disposed of.
8. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents despite service
and the compensation amount has already been recovered by them through
execution. The statutory amount be refunded back to the appellant.
9. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsel for the parties under
the signature of the Court Master.
JULY 24, 2017 J.R. MIDHA, J.
Dk
