Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Sweta Devi & Ors. on 4 February, 2022
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 04th February, 2022
+ MAC.APP. 31/2022 & CM APPL. 6288/2022
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
versus
SWETA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents : None.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
CM APPL. 6289/2022 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM APPL. 6290/2022 (condonation of delay)
The Supreme Court by its orders 23.03.2020, 27.04.2021 and
10.01.2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 has
suspended the period of limitation in view of the ongoing pandemic.
Accordingly, there is no delay in filing the appeal.
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:05.02.2022
Signing Date:06.02.2022 17:15:20 21:25
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
The application is disposed of.
MAC.APP. 31/2022
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Appellant impugns order dated 21.10.2021 in respect of the
deceased Mr. Vashisht Kumar (MACP No. 331/2018 titled Smt. Sweta
Devi &Ors. Vs. Parveen Kumar Yadav &Ors.).
3. The only ground urged by learned counsel appearing for the
appellant is that the tribunal has incorrectly assessed the income of the
deceased at Rs. 16,468/- per month.
4. Learned counsel submits that no evidence was produced with
regard to the income of the deceased. He submits that the testimony of
the claimant, wife of the deceased was that he was employed as a
driver and he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month but neither any
document or occupation nor income of her husband was produced.
5. Learned counsel submits that in the Detailed Accident Report
(DAR), qua the deceased it was reported that his occupation was
driver and his monthly income was Rs. 10,000/- per month. He
submits that since the DAR had stated that the income of the deceased
was Rs. 10,000/- per month, the tribunal has erred in taking an amount
higher than the amount reported by DAR.
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:05.02.2022
Signing Date:06.02.2022 17:15:20 21:25
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
6. I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the
appellant for the reasons DAR in so far as the income of the deceased
is concerned cannot be taken as conclusive proof. There is no
reference in the DAR as to on what basis income of the deceased has
been reported to be Rs. 10,000/- per month.
7. In the impugned award, tribunal has noticed that the claim of
the wife of the deceased was that he was working as a driver and
earning Rs. 20,000/-.
8. Tribunal has noticed that there was no dispute that the deceased
was a driver and employed as such. Tribunal has held that as no
evidence of occupation or income was produced, it had no option but
to take the income of the deceased at minimum wage for a skilled
person prevailing in Delhi because the accident had taken place in
Delhi. For the purpose of assessing his income the Tribunal has
thereafter taken the minimum wage of a skilled person which was Rs.
16,468/- per month.
9. It may further be noticed that there is no dispute raised by the
appellant with regard to the occupation of the deceased i.e. that of a
driver. A person who is working as a driver has to be taken as a
skilled person as he possesses the skill of driving.
10. In the absence of any evidence being produced to the contrary,
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:05.02.2022
Signing Date:06.02.2022 17:15:20 21:25
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
tribunal had correctly taken the minimum wage of a skilled person
prevailing in Delhi as on the date of the accident.
11. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned award
in so far as it relates to the subject claim petition. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
12. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor
commented upon merits of the other claim petitions which have also
been disposed of by the same impugned award.
13. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court
Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
FEBRUARY 4, 2022
'rs'
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:05.02.2022
Signing Date:06.02.2022 17:15:20 21:25
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
