Delhi High Court
Heena & Ors. vs Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd ... on 10 October, 2023
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 10.10.2023
+ MAC.APP. 63/2022
HEENA & ORS.
..... Appellants
Through: Mr.Anshuman Bal, Adv.
versus
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.A.K. Soni, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated
18.09.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Impugned Award')
passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-02,
(North-District), Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as
the 'Tribunal') in MAC Petition No. 4665/2016 titled Smt.
Heena & Ors. v. Sh. Tarsem Lal & Ors..
2. The limited challenge of the appellant to the Impugned
Award is on the determination of the income of the deceased-
Sh.Tosheen, who had unfortunately died, having suffered fatal
injuries, in an accident on 05.12.2014 when he was travelling
along with his wife on a motorcycle and was hit by a TATA
Tempo bearing no. HR-64-0656 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Offending Vehicle') being driven in a rash and negligent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:16.10.2023
15:59:39
manner.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that
though the appellants could not produce any cogent evidence of
the income of the deceased, his Driving Licence (Ex-PW1/2),
produced before the learned Tribunal, authorized the deceased
to drive a bus. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in
Mahrunisha & Ors. v. Mohd Naseem Haider & Ors,
2012:DHC:1418, he submits that this Court has taken
cognizance of the fact that the salary of a truck driver, a bus
driver, and a motor car driver, cannot be the same, although all
of them are skilled workers. He submits that the learned
Tribunal should, therefore, have independently assessed the
income of the deceased and, in any case, not applied the
minimum wages notified for an unskilled worker for
determining his income.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent
no.1 submits that the appellants did not even name the employer
with whom the deceased was allegedly working at the time of
the accident, leave alone call the employer as a witness. There
was no proof of the income of the deceased. Even the appellant
no.1, in her evidence by way of affidavit, did not even state as
to what vehicle the deceased used to drive. He submits that in
the absence of any proof of income/employment of the
deceased, the learned Tribunal has rightly determined the
income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages notified
for an unskilled worker. He submits that merely because his
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:16.10.2023
15:59:39
licence was endorsed for driving a bus, will not make the
deceased a skilled worker.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
6. In absence of any proof of the deceased being employed
as a driver of a bus and having any income therefrom, the
learned Tribunal has, in my view, rightly assessed the income of
the deceased on the basis of the minimum wages notified by the
Government of NCT of Delhi. However, at the same time, the
learned Tribunal has erred in applying the minimum wages for
an 'unskilled worker'. As the licence of the deceased (Ex-
PW1/2) shows that the deceased was holding a licence to drive
inter alia a bus, in my view, the minimum wages for a skilled
worker should have been taken into account for determining the
income of the deceased.
7. The judgment of this Court in Mahrunisha & Ors.
(Supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the present case
inasmuch as this Court has no basis for determining what would
be the fair wage that would be earned by a driver of a bus,
especially when there is no proof also before this Court that the
deceased was, in fact, so employed and was driving a bus for
earning his livelihood.
8. In view of the above, the Impugned Award is modified to
the limited extent that the income of the deceased shall be
determined on the basis of the minimum wages notified by the
Government of NCT of Delhi for a skilled worker.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:16.10.2023
15:59:39
9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the
relevant time, the minimum wages notified for a skilled worker
was Rs.10,478/- per month.
10. Accordingly, the compensation awarded to the appellants
towards loss of dependency is re-determined as under:-
S.No. Particulars Trial Court High Court
1. Loss of Rs.8632x3/4x140/100 Rs.10,478x3/4x140/100
dependency x12x17 x12x17
= Rs.18,49,000/- =Rs.22,44,387.60/-
Rounded off to
Rs. 22,44,500/-
2. Loss of love NIL NIL
and Affection
3. Loss of Rs.2,40,000/- Rs.2,40,000/-
Consortium
4. Loss of Estate Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/-
and Funeral
Expenses
Total =Rs.21,19,000/- =Rs.25,14,500/-
(Rs.25,14,500 -
Enhanced Amount Rs.21,19,000)
= Rs.3,95,500/-
11. The respondent no.1 shall deposit the enhanced
compensation along with interest at the rate as was awarded by
the learned Tribunal, with the learned Tribunal within a period
of eight weeks from today. The compensation shall be released
in favour of the appellants in terms of the Schedule prescribed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:16.10.2023
15:59:39
by the Impugned Award.
12. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. There shall be
no orders as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
OCTOBER 10, 2023/rv/SS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:16.10.2023
15:59:39
