National Insurance Co v. Renu Devi & Ors

V. B. GUPTA, J. May 23, 2008 ac

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI MAC APPEAL No.319 of 2008 % Judgment reserved on: 19th May, 2008 Judgment delivered on: 23rd May, 2008 National Insurance Company Ltd. Delhi Regional Office "Jeevan Bharati" Tower-II, Level-IV, 124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001. …..Appellant Through: Ms.Neetu Arora, Adv. Versus 1. Renu Devi, W/o Late Shri Shyam Rishideo 2. Ms.Phullo Kumari D/o Late Shri Shyam Rishideo 3. Ms.Chandani Kumari, D/o Late Shri Shyam Rishideo 4. Smt. Urmila Devi, W/o Sh. Sita Ram Rishideo 5. Shri Sita Ram Rishideo S/o Late Shri Mangain Rishideo All R/o Village Gopipur, P.S. Kumarkhand Distt. Madhepura, Bihar-852112 Presently at: C/o Mahinder Singh Saini H.No.56, Village Naharpur, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi. …..Respondent Through: Nemo. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as the "Act") arises out of the award dated 15.02.08 passed by Sh. Chander Shekhar, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short as "Tribunal"), Delhi awarding the compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- along with the interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization to the claimants. 2. The brief facts of the case relevant for present appeal are that on 12.10.05 at 11.45 am when the deceased, Sh. Shyam Rishideo reached near Priya Dairy, B-5/263, Sector 7, Divider Road Rohini, Delhi, all of a sudden the offending bus no. DL-1-PB-1647 being driven by Sh. Hari Singh, in a rash and negligent manner, lack in proper lookouts and in utmost high speed came and hit the deceased violently, as a result of which deceased fell down on the road and sustained multiple fatal injuries. The deceased was taken to BSA Hospital, Delhi, where he was declared "brought dead". 3. The claimants being the wife, children and parents of the deceased filed the petition for seeking the compensation. 4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in doubling the future prospective income of the deceased without any evidence on record for the actual income of the deceased by merely considering the minimum wages and by applying the neutralization due to increase in inflation. The Tribunal has failed to consider that the deceased was Rikshaw puller and such criteria of future prospective income is not provided in the Act. Thus, the amount of compensation awarded is on the higher side. It is further submitted that multiplier of 17 as adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side. 5. The Apex Court in plethora of cases has held that while assessing the income of the deceased in motor accident cases, the tribunals should bear in mind that the same should be assessed on the basis of the cogent and the reliable evidence produced and duly proved on record. 6. In this regard the thumb rule is that where there is no cogent evidence on record to prove the monthly income at the time of accident then the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act prevalent at the time of accident can be taken into consideration. 7. The wife of the deceased in her evidence has stated that the age of the deceased was 23 years at the time of accident which is not disputed by any of the respondents (before Tribunal) and is duly corroborated by Postmortem report filed on record. Further, she has stated that the deceased was rikshaw puller and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. However, no such documentary proof regarding occupation and income has been filed on record. Thus, the Tribunal has determined the income of the deceased with the aid of Minimum Wages Act. 8. Though the claimants have failed to produce any cogent evidence on record, but once the resort has been made to the Minimum Wages Act, therefore, the increase in the future wages under the Minimum Wages Act can certainly be taken