Delhi High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sheela Devi & Ors. on 19 May, 2017
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 19th May, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 466/2015
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Manor R. Sinha, Adv.
Versus
SHEELA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J (Oral)
MAC.APP. 466/2015 & CM No. 10403/2015
1. On 26.01.2008 one Mr. Jagan Lal, a vegetable vendor was returning home
around midnight along with his friends with his vegetable push-cart. They
stopped at the Rohini Jail traffic light for crossing the road and while
waiting for the signal to turn green, a truck bearing no. UP-12B-0237 being
driven in a rash and negligent manner crushed the deceased under its wheels
and crashed into another vehicle i.e. model -TATA 407 bearing no. DL-
1LG-0450. Jagan Lal was taken to Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi where the doctors declared him dead on arrival. The
deceased was survived by his wife and two daughters and two sons. One of
the daughters, Ms. Suman, passed away during the pendency of the
proceedings before the Tribunal.
MAC.APP.No. 466/2015 Page 1 of 4
2. The death of the deceased due to the insured vehicle being driven
rashly and negligently was established on the basis of the FIR, post-mortem
report, the evidence on record, particularly the evidence of an eye-witness
Mr. Vinod Kumar, who was returning home alongwith the deceased.
3. The claimants sought compensation on the basis that the deceased was
earning about Rs. 8,000/- per month from his vocation as a vegetable
vendor, however, in the absence of any proof in support of this claim the
Tribunal accepted the minimum wages of an unskilled person as on
26.01.2008 as applicable to the deceased. Minimum wages were Rs. 3516/-,
on which 50% loss of future prospects were added and 1/4th was deducted
towards his personal expenses bringing the deceased's income to Rs.
3955.50/- [Rs. 3516 + Rs. 1758/- (50% of Rs. 3516/-) = Rs. 5274/- less Rs.
1318.50/- (1/4th of Rs. 5274/-) i.e. Rs. 3955.50/-.]. This monthly earning
was multiplied by 12. Based upon the post-mortem report, showing the age
of the deceased as 35 years, a multiplier of 16 was applied giving the
compensation towards loss of earning as Rs. 7,59,552/-. Additionally, Rs.
25,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs. 1 lakh each towards
loss of consortium to the widow and loss of care and guidance for the minor
children. Interest at the rate of 9% was awarded on the compensation
amount from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 06.02.2008. Since the
offending vehicle was insured, the insurance company was held liable to pay
the compensation amount.
4. The award has been impugned by the appellant on the ground that
there is an addition of 50% towards loss of future prospects on minimum
wages of a self-employed person. The Court is unable to accept this
contention for the reason that the compensation of the amount is just and
MAC.APP.No. 466/2015 Page 2 of 4
fair. In The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Suman & Ors., this Court
has discussed a similar circumstance as under:
"4. The Claims Tribunal has taken the minimum wages of
Rs.3,589.90 and after adding 50% towards the future
prospects, the total income of the deceased has been taken as
Rs.5,384.85 (Rs.3589.90 + Rs.1,794.95). This Court is of the
view that the occupation of the deceased as a professional
driver having been sufficiently proved, the income of the
deceased can be safely presumed as Rs.5,384.85 per month
even if future prospects are not awarded. It is not mandatory
to resort the 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 1/3rd
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/-. MAC.APP 981/2015 Page 3 of 3
Although there was no proof of the income of the victims, the
Supreme Court did not find it proper to apply the minimum
wages.
6. This Court has applied the principles laid down in Uphaar
tragedy case to compute the compensation in United India
Insurance Co. V. Kanwar Lal, 2012 SCC Online Del 2411,
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bal Kishan Pawar, 2012 SCC
MAC.APP.No. 466/2015 Page 3 of 4
Online Del 3201, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chander
Dutt, 2012 SCC Online Del 2412, National Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Sewa Ram, 2012 SCC Online Del 2413 and National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Komal, 2014 ACJ 1540, National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gaje Singh, 2012 ACJ 2346 and
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhateri, 2012 SCC Online Del
2409.
7. Applying the principles laid down in Uphaar tragedy case,
the income of the deceased is presumed to be
Rs.5,384.85.............................."
5. In view of the above, the Court assumes that the monthly income of
the deceased, a vegetable vendor in June, 2008, as Rs.3,955.80 is just and
proper. There is no reason to interfere with the award on this ground.
Similarly, the compensation towards non-pecuniary amounts also is just and
fair. There is no cause for the Court to interfere with the impugned order.
The appeal is without basis and is, accordingly dismissed. The statutory
deposit be refunded to the appellant.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
MAY 19, 2017
kk
