Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sariti and Others

G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs. 11,98,180/- awarded for the death of Santosh Kumar who died in an accident which occurred on 28.11.2008. 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 with an addition of 50% in the minimum wages of an unskilled worker.

During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that the deceased Santosh Kumar was running a shop dealing in sale and repair of mobile phones.

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. Rs. 3683/- per month, added 50% towards inflation, deducted 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses and adopted the multiplier of 17 to compute the loss of dependency as Rs. 8,45,376/-.

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 Vs. Shri Tilak Raj and Another, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pooja and Others, 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. Rooniya Devi & Ors. MAC APP.189/2011 decided on 30.01.2012 and Division Bench Judgments of this Court in Delhi Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Lalita, 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.

The Respondents/Claimants failed to produce any evidence with regard to the deceased''s profession or his income. In the circumstances, the Claims Tribunal was justified in taking the deceased''s income to be Rs. 3683/- per month as fixed for an unskilled worker under the Minimum Wages Act. The Claims Tribunal, however, was not justified in making an addition of 50% for the reasons as stated earlier. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 5,63,499/-( Rs. 3683 X 12 -1/4 X 17).

There is no other challenge to the impugned judgment. It is, however, urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that normally a sum of Rs. 25,000/- only is awarded towards loss of love and affection. The Claims Tribunal erred in granting a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under this head. I agree that the normally, a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- only is granted under the loss of love and affection. But, in the absence of any challenge to the award on this count, I would not interfere with the same.

The overall compensation is computed as under:

Sl. No.

Compensation under various heads

Awarded by the Claims Tribunal

Awarded by this Court

1.

Loss of Dependency

Rs. 8,45,376/-

Rs. 5,63,499/-

2.

Loss to Estate

Rs. 5,000/-

Rs. 5,000/-

3.

Loss of Consortium

Rs. 10,000/-

Rs. 10,000/-

4.

Funeral Expenses

Rs. 25,000/-

Rs. 25,000/-

5.

Loss of Love & Affection

Rs. 50,000/-

Rs. 50,000/-

6.

Medical Treatment

Rs. 2,62,804/-

Rs. 2,62,804/-

Total

Rs. 11,98,180/-

Rs. 9,26,303/-

The overall compensation is reduced from Rs. 11,98,180/- to Rs. 9,26,303/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment.

The excess amount of Rs. 2,71,877/- 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.

The statutory amount deposited shall also be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.