Delhi High Court
Sh. Ramehar And Ors. vs Vinod Kumar And Ors. on 7 December, 2007
Author: Kailash Gambhir
Bench: Kailash Gambhir
JUDGMENT Kailash Gambhir, J.
1. On the last date, Mr. P.K. Seth, Advocate appeared for respondent No. 2 insurance company. Complete set of paper book was supplied to Mr. P.K. Seth, Advocate. But still nobody has chosen to appear for the contesting respondent No. 2.
2. The brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal are as under:
On 4.09.2004, the deceased Mr. Arun Dangi and his brother were coming back from Nangloi on their motor cycle bearing registration No. DL-4S-AG-1977. At about 3.30 p.m. whey they crossed the Nilothi More, tempo bearing No. DL-1LB-4108 rammed into their motorcycle. They both fell down and deceased Mr. Arun Dangi received grevious injuries and died at the spot.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the records.
4. The main grievance raised by counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the minimum wages as are applicable to a boy possessing matriculate qualification. The contention of counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 22,500/- in the presence of academic qualification placed and proved on record by the appellant. Counsel for the appellant contends that the deceased was a very bright student and would have certainly risen in his life but due to the said tragedy, the life of the young child came to an end.
5. Perusal of the award shows that the Tribunal has taken into consideration notional income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- as laid down in the IInd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and then considering the fact of their being no revision of the Second Schedule which came into effect in the year 1994, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 22,500/- p.a. It is a settled legal position that under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the compensation to be awarded in favor of the claimants should neither be excessive nor on the lower side, but the same should be just, fair and equitable. No amount of compensation can compensate the loss of a life or can bring back happiness in the lives of the dependant family members. It is a case of young boy of 18 years whose life was snatched in the gruesome accident at the threshold of his youth. The boy was admittedly a very brilliant child. Since the deceased had already completed his matriculation therefore, safely the minimum wages as applicable for a matriculate person can be taken into consideration. The minimum wages as on the relevant date of accident for a matriculate person were Rs. 3342.90, say Rs. 3343/-. The multiplier of 15 has been applied in the facts of the present case. Therefore, the increase in the minimum wages can be taken into consideration. It is generally noticed that under the Minimum Wages Act due to periodical revision in the minimum wages, the wages get more than double within a period of 10 years, therefore, the average of the said minimum wages and the increased wages after making it double can be taken into consideration. Deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 15, the average loss of financial dependency would come to Rs. 6,01,740/-. Therefore, the total compensation shall come out as Rs. 6,41,740/-. The appellant has already received the award amount, therefore, now appellant shall be entitled to get the differential of the award amount along with up to date interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till final realisation of the same.
6. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of.