New India Assurance Company Ltd v. Ramesh & Ors

ORDER (ORAL) ; REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

¶1With the consent of the counsel for the appellant and the respondents No.l and 2, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. In view of the fact that the present appeal has been filed by the appellant Pase 1 of 9 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation, notice to the respondentNos.3 and 4, who are the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, is dispensed with.

¶2The present appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeks to assail the award dated 23.07.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini, Delhi in Claim Petition No.99/2010 titled as "Shri Ramesh & Anr. vs. Shri Netarpal & Ors." whereby the AppellantInsurance Company has been held liableto pay compensationto RespondentNo. 1 and 2 in the sum of Rs. 4,77,120/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

¶3The brief facts leading to the filing of the claim petition are that one Shri Uma Shanlcar died in a motor accident on 16.11.2006 while he was driving a motorcycle and was hit by a speeding truck coming from the opposite direction and plying on the wrong side. He was survived by the Respondents No.l and 2, being his father and mother, who filed a claim petition under Section 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for his untimely demise. The respondents No.l & 2 claimed in the Pase 2 of 9 'I claim petitionthat the deceasedSh. Uma Shanlcarwas doing the job of a driverbut they did notplace any materialon recordregardingthe salary of the deceased.

¶4The learned Claims Tribunal after accepting the allegation of the RespondentsNo.l & 2 that the deceasedhad died on accountof injuriessufferedby him as a result of the rash and negligentdriving of the RespondentNo. 3 - the driver of the truck owned by the RespondentNo. 4, held the appellant-InsuranceCompany liableto pay a sum of Rs.4,77,120/-to the respondentsNo.l and 2 alongwith interestat the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the petitiontill the realizationof the said amount.

¶5I find from the record that the petitioners did not place on record any proof of incomeof the deceasedand thereforein order to calculate the loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal took into accountthe minimumwagesprevailingon the date of the accidentfor an unskilled person, which were in the sum of ^ 3,312/- per month. The learned Tribunal thereafter, referring to the decision of this Court in Mender Kumar Vs. Virender Singh, II (2010) ACC 322, wherein Pase 3 of 9 it was held that the Court should take judicial notice of increase in minimum wages to meet the increase in price index and inflation rate, took the average of the minimumwages and its double and arrivedat the figure of ^ 4,968/-per month. Sincethe deceasedwas unmarried at the time of the death, half of the wages were deducted therefrom towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The yearly loss of dependencyofthe claimantswas, thus, assessedby the Tribunalto be in the sum of ^ 29,808/-. To augment this multiplicand, the multiplierof 15 was applied on the basis of the age of Respondent No. 2 (the motherof the deceased),being 39 years. This was done in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298, wherein it was held that in case the deceased was unmarried at the time of death, the age of his dependants must be taken into consideration. The total loss of dependency was thus computed to be in the sum of ^ 4,47,120/-, to which a sum of ? 10,000/- each was added towards loss of estate, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. Pase 4 of 9

¶6Aggrievedby the aforesaidaward, the appellanthas preferred the presentappeal in whichthe award has been soughtto be assailed on the sole groundthat the learnedClaims Tribunalwhile taking the income of the deceased on the basis of the minimum wages applicable on the date of the accident to an unskilled workman, since the claimantshadtotallyfailedto provethe incomeof the deceased,erred in giving the benefit of doublingthe minimumwages.

¶7Ms. Neerja Sachdeva,the learnedcounselfor the Appellant,in support of her aforesaid contention, has placed reliance on the following two judgments: i. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ1298 a. Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidya Dhar Dutta, (2006) 3 see 242

¶8I find no merit in this contention of the appellant as it has been the consistent view of different Benches of this High Court that minimum wages get doubled over a period of 10 years, and this is not a fact which can be brushed aside while computing the loss of Pase 5 of 9 •7 dependency of the legal representativesof the deceased in a motor vehicular accident. As regards the reliance placed on the cases of Sarla Verma and Bijoy Kumar Dugar (supra), by the learned counsel of the Appellant,it is pertinentto note that in both the said cases the aspect of rise of minimumwage rate has not been touched upon and pertinently in the second case enhancement of compensationwas refused on the ground that no materialcould be placed on record by the claimantsto supporttheir contentionthat the future prospects of the deceased ought to have been taken into considerationfor the purpose of assessment of the income of the deceased. In the context of cases where compensation is awarded on the basisof minimumwages,however,this Courthas, time and again, taken the view that the benefit of doubling of minimum wages must be given to counterthe rise in price index and inflation;and that the Court's taking into account the increase in minimum wages is not akin to taking into account the future prospects of the deceased in his chosen job or vocation. The following, amongst others, are the decisions of this Court taking the aforesaid view: Pase 6 of 9

(i) Kanwar Devi vs. Bansal Roadways, 2008ACJ 2182,

(ii) National Insurance Company Limited vs. Renu Devi, III (2008) ACC134,

(iii) UPSRTC vs. Munni Devi, IV(2009) ACC 879,

(iv) Shanti Devi and Ors. vs. Ghasiya Khachhap and Ors., ILR (2010) Delhi 412,

(v) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sujata & Ors., MAC. APP. No.19/2011 decided on January 21, 2011,

(vi) Mender Kumar vs. VirenderSingh, II (2010)ACC 322, and

(vii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kailash Devi, II (2008) ACC 770.

¶9During the course of hearing no cogent reason could be given by the learned counselfor the appellantas to why this Bench should differ with the consistent view taken by different Benches of this Court that judicial notice of increase in the minimum wages to meet the increase in price index and inflation rates should be taken note of when the compensation payable to the victim or his legal Pase 7 of 9 representativesis beingcomputedonthebasis of minimumwages. I, therefore, proceed on the basis that over a period of time the minimumwages earnedbythe deceasedwouldhave doubled.

¶10In the instant case, the deceased was 23 years of age when he met with the unfortunate accident on

16.11.2006 and thus by

16.11.2016,i.e., withinthe span of 10 years, the minimumwages of the deceased would have most certainly doubled. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplierof 15, in consonancewith the judgmentofthe SupremeCourt in Smt. Sarla Verma (supra)and the choiceof this multiplierhas not been faultedby theAppellant. Thus, takingjudicialnotice of the fact that in 15 years the income of the deceased would be two and a half times of the minimum wage rate in the year 2006, it can safely be presumed that the income of the deceased would have risen to ^ 8,280/- p.m. In the instant case, however, the average annual income of the deceased has been assessedby the Tribunalto be in the sum of ^ 4,968/-per month by taking the average of the minimumwages and its double to beat the inflation rate and the rise in the price index. I, therefore, see no MAC.APP. 718/2010 Pase8of9 justificationat all to disagreewiththefindingsofthe learnedTribunal in this regard.

¶11The appeal is withoutmeritand is dismissed. The entireaward amount which has been depositedwith the Registrar General of this Court in terms of the order dated 28.10.2010 shall enure to the benefit of the claimants/the respondent Nos.l and 2.

¶12The prayer for refund of the statutory deposit made by the Appellant-InsuranceCompany with the interest accrued thereon, if any, is allowed.

¶14Records of the learned Tribunal be sent back. REVAKHETRAPAL (JUDGE) February 04, 2011 aks MAC.APP. 718/2010 Pase9of9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI MAC. APP. 718/2010 and CM 19186/2010 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Appellant Through: Ms.Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate versus RAMESH & ORS Respondents Through: Mr.S.N.Parashar,Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 % Date of Decision : February 04, 2011 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL 1. Whether reporters of localpapers may be allowed to see the judgment? y 2. To be referredto the Reporteror not? ^ 3. Whetherjudgmentshouldbe reportedin Digest? J