New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Indira and Others

G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs. 13,51,000/- awarded for the death of Ram Vilas, who died in an accident which occurred on 29.05.2010. The finding on negligence is not challenged by the Appellant Insurance Company.

During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal), it was claimed that the deceased Ram Vilas was working as a rickshaw puller and was earning Rs. 5,500/- per month.

In the absence of any evidence with regard to the deceased''s income, the Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of an unskilled worker i.e. Rs. 5278/- per month, added 50% towards future inflation, deducted 1/5th towards the personal expenses and took the multiplier as 16 and computed the loss of dependency assuming the deceased''s income to be Rs. 7917/- i.e. almost 11/2 times as claimed by the Claimants.

It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that in view of the Division Bench judgment in Rattan Lal Mehta v. Rajinder Kapoor & Anr. II (1996) ACC 1 (DB) increase in the minimum wages on account of future inflation was not permissible as the inflation is inbuilt in the multiplier.

It is also urged that the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded towards loss of Love and Affection is on the higher side.

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 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.

The Respondents (the Claimants) therefore were entitled to the loss of dependency only on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker, which were Rs. 5278/- per month on the date of the accident.

Hence, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 8,10,700/- (5278/- x 4/5 x 12 x16).

The compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards Loss of Love and Affection and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, in the absence of any evidence was on the higher side.

As the loss of love and affection can never be measured in terms of money. Thus, uniformity has to be adopted by the Courts while granting non-pecuniary damages. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma and Others Vs. Bachitar Singh and Others, and in Baby Radhika Gupta and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, granted only Rs. 25,000/- (in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and affection. Thus, I would reduce the compensation under this head to Rs. 25,000/- only.

On adding notional sums of Rs. 25,000/- towards Loss of Love and Affection, Rs. 10,000/- towards Loss to Estate and Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses, the overall compensation comes to Rs. 8,55,700/- (8,10,700/- + 45,000/- ), which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment.

The compensation is thus reduced from Rs. 13,51,000/- to Rs. 8,55,700/-.

The excess amount of Rs. 4,95,300/- 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 compensation payable to Respondents No. 1 to 7 shall be released in terms of the order of the Claims Tribunal.

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