Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd vs Manju Devi & Ors on 23 April, 2012

[Cites 7, Cited by 10]

Delhi High Court

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd vs Manju Devi & Ors on 23 April, 2012

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2012 DEL 9

Bench: G.P.Mittal

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Decided on: 23rd April, 2012
+       MAC.APP. 315/2010

        BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
                                                  ..... Appellant
                        Through: Mr.Khalid Arshad, Advocate
                                 for Mr. Atul Nanda, Sr.
                                 Advocate.
                 versus

        MANJU DEVI & ORS.                   ..... Respondents
                     Through:         Mr. Ashok Popli, Advocate for
                                      Respondents No.1 to 8.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                          JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of ` 9,82,640/-

awarded for the death of Vijay Shankar who died in an accident on 19.08.2007.

2. The finding on negligence is not challenged by the Appellant Insurance Company. The only ground of challenge is the assumed income taken by the Claims Tribunal on addition of 50% in the minimum wages of an unskilled worker.

3. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that the deceased Vijay Shankar was working as a rickshaw puller MAC APP No.315/2010 Page 1 of 4 and was earning ` 6,500/- per month.

4. In the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the deceased's employment, the Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of an unskilled worker i.e. `3709/- per month, added 50% towards inflation, deducted 1/5th towards the personal and living expenses and adopted the multiplier of 14 to compute the loss of dependency as ` 7,52,640/-.

5. The age of the deceased, the number of the family members and the multiplier has not been disputed by the Appellant. The only ground of challenge is that 50% addition towards future inflation should not have been given.

6. In Dhaneshwari & Another v. Tajeshwar Singh & Others, MAC.

APP 997/2011 decided on 19.3.2012, after noticing the Judgments of this Court in Smt. Anari Devi v. Shri Tilak Raj & Anr., II (2004) ACC 739; (2005 ACJ 1397); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pooja & Ors., II (2006) ACC 382 (2007 ACJ 1051); Om Kumari & Ors. v. Shish Pal & Ors, 140 (2007) DLT 62; Narinder Bishal & Anr. v. Rambir Singh & Ors., MAC APP. 1007-08/2006, decided on 20.02.2008; New India Assurance Co. Ld. v. Vijay Singh MAC APP. 280/2008 decided on 09.05.2008; Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Rajni Devi & Ors. MAC APP.286/2011 decided on 06.01.2012; Smt. Gulabeeya Devi v. Mehboob Ali & Ors. MAC APP.463/2011 decided on 10.01.2012 and IFFCO TOKIO Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. v.

MAC APP No.315/2010 Page 2 of 4

Rooniya Devi & Ors. MAC APP.189/2011 decided on 30.01.2012 and Division Bench Judgments of this Court in Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Kumari Lalita 22 (1982) DLT 170 (DB) and Rattan Lal Mehta v. Rajinder Kapoor & Anr. II (1996) ACC 1 (DB), this Court has held that in view of Rattan Lal Mehta (supra) increase in minimum wages cannot be given on account of future inflation.

7. In this case, the deceased's income was claimed to be ` 6500/-

per month. In her affidavit Smt. Manju Devi, the deceased's widow deposed that the deceased was earning `200/- to 250/- per day while working as a rickshaw puller. No suggestion was given to PW1 that the deceased did not have this income. In the circumstances, I would take the income of the rickshaw puller at `150/- per day i.e. `4500/- per month. Thus, the loss of dependency would come to `6,04,800/- (`4500 X 4/5 X 14 X

12).

8. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that loss of love and affection granted to each of the eight Respondents @ `25,000/- is on the higher side. I agree that normally, a compensation of `25,000/- is granted under the loss of love and affection irrespective of the number of dependents. But, in the absence of any challenge to the award on this count, I would not interfere with the same.

9. The overall compensation comes to `8,34,800/- which shall MAC APP No.315/2010 Page 3 of 4 carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment.

10. The excess amount of `1,47,840/- along with the proportionate interest and the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

11. The statutory amount of `25,000/- deposited shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

12. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE APRIL 23, 2012 pst MAC APP No.315/2010 Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court