Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Hanufa Bibi and Others

G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of ` 5,42,522/- awarded for the death of Sajan who was aged 21 years at the time of his death in a motor accident which occurred on 22.10.2010. The finding on negligence is not challenged by the Appellant Insurance Company.

During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that the deceased was working in a surgical items manufacturing unit and was earning ` 6,000/- per month. No documentary evidence nor any other cogent evidence was produced to prove the deceased''s employment or his profession. The deceased''s brother who was impleaded as Petitioner No. 2 in the Claim Petition was admittedly not dependent on the deceased.

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. `5278/- per month, added 50% towards inflation, deducted 50% towards the personal and living expenses and adopted the multiplier of 11 to compute the loss of dependency as ` 5,42,522/-.

The age of the deceased, the dependency of the mother 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.

On the other hand, it is urged by the learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 and 2 that no compensation was awarded on account of loss of love and affection. Although the Respondents No. 1 and 2 have not filed any Cross-Appeal or Cross-Objections, yet they are entitled to support the compensation granted even without filing any Cross-Appeal in terms of Order XLI Rule 22.

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.

Since the deceased''s income was not proved, the Claims Tribunal rightly took the minimum wages of an unskilled worker. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to `3,48,348/-(`5278 X 12 X 1/2 X 11). On addition of sums of ` 10,000/- each towards loss to estate and funeral expenses and `25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, the overall compensation comes to `3,93,348/- 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 `1,49,174/- 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.