AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 364 wordsG.P. Mittal, J.
CM No.21669/2011
(Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CM. No.21670/2011(delay)
Delay condoned for the reasons as stated in the appeal disposed off.
MAC.APP. 1071/2011
The Appellants seek enhancement of compensation in respect of death of deceased Rewati Lal, who died in a motor accident which took place on 18.03.2007. The Appellants case was that the deceased was working as a driver privately and getting a salary of Rs.6,000/- to 7,000/- per month. In absence of any proof of income, the Tribunal took the minimum wages of skilled worker on the date of accident i.e. Rs.3894/- per month, added 50% towards indexation on account of inflation on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Kanwar Devi and Others Vs. Bansal Roadways and Others, and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Renu Devi and Others, , applied the multiplier of 15 as per age of the deceased on the basis of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and calculated the dependency as Rs.5,84,160/-. The Tribunal further awarded the conventional sums in terms of the Supreme Court judgment in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (supra) towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses and loss of love and affection and computed the total compensation at Rs. 6,16,160/-
It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.7,000/- per month and the Tribunal ought to have taken the same into consideration to arrive at the loss of dependency. No evidence with regard to the deceased''s income was produced before the Tribunal. Thus, in my view, the Tribunal rightly took the minimum wages of a skilled worker to calculate dependency. Otherwise also, the deceased''s income was claimed to be Rs.6,000/- to 7,000/- per month and after giving the benefit of 50% of the minimum wages to offset the inflation, the monthly income taken by the Tribunal came close to Rs.6,000/-. It cannot be said that the compensation awarded i.e. Rs.6,16,160/- is not just and unreasonable. There is no ground to interfere in the impugned award.
The Appeal is dismissed. No costs.