Delhi High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd. vs Guddi Devi & Ors on 17 September, 2019
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 17.09.2019
+ MAC.APP. 789/2019
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate.
versus
GUDDI DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
MAC.APP. 789/2019, CM APPL. 41466/2019 & CM APPL. 41467/2019
1. The appellant impugns the award of compensation dated 30.05.2019
passed by the learned MACT in Petition No. 122/2018 on the ground that
the minimum wages of Jharkhand should have been taken into consideration
because the claimants are all residents of Jharkhand.
2. The aforesaid argument is ex-facie untenable because the case of
claimants was that their deceased kin was plying a goods-carrying rickshaw
in Delhi. It is in these circumstances that the learned MACT has taken the
minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker in Delhi. It has reasoned
as under:-
"PW-1 stated that the deceased was her husband.
He was a rickshaw puller and used to earn
Rs.25,000/- p.m. During cross examination she
stated that her children are studying in a village at
Jharkhand. She further stated that they are the
residents of Jharkhand. She further stated that she
has filed Aadhar card of her husband showing the
address of Jharkhand. She further stated that she
has not filed any documentary evidence that her
husband was a resident of Delhi. She further stated
that she has not filed any documentary evidence that
her husband was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m.
During the course of arguments ld. counsel for
the insurance company contented that for
calculating the loss of income the minimum wages of
Jharkhand should be considered as on the date of
accident, the petitioners as well as the deceased did
not have any residential proof of Delhi.
I am not convinced with the contention of ld.
counsel for the insurance company. In a normal case
where the petitioners do not have any residential
proof of the deceased of Delhi and there is mere
submission regarding working of the deceased in
Delhi, the contention of the ld. counsel would have
been acceptable. In the case in hand the submission
of the petitioners is that the deceased was plying a
goods rickshaw and was coming back after
unloading some goods. The first information as
received by the police shows that on the spot of
accident near the divider, a goods rickshaw was
found in accidental condition. The said rickshaw
was also seized by the police and a seizure memo
was prepared. Under these circumstances it is clear
that although the deceased did not have any
residential proof of Delhi but in all probability he
was working in Delhi and it would be unjustified
that if the Tribunal considers minimum wages of
Jharkhand and not of Delhi. Although the petitioners
claim that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/-
p.m. but they have not placed on record any proof
and thus, the Tribunal has no option but to take the
minimum wages of Delhi, which at the time of
accident were Rs.13,350/- p.m."
3. Quite clearly, it has been established that the deceased was working in
Delhi i.e. plying a rickshaw, which was seized by the police from the site of
the accident. Therefore, the minimum wages notified for Delhi was rightly
applied. The Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The appeal is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.
4. Statutory amount, alongwith interest accrued thereon, be deposited
into the 'AASRA' fund.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
SEPTEMBER 17, 2019
AB
