Judgment:
$~15 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:
19. h May, 2017 MAC.APP. 466/2015 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Manor R. Sinha, Adv. Versus SHEELA DEVI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J (Oral) MAC.APP. 466/2015 & CM No.10403/2015 1. On 26.01.2008 one Mr. Jagan Lal, a vegetable vendor was returning home around midnight along with his friends with his vegetable push-cart. They stopped at the Rohini Jail traffic light for crossing the road and while waiting for the signal to turn green, a truck bearing No.UP-12B-0237 being driven in a rash and negligent manner crushed the deceased under its wheels and crashed into another vehicle i.e. model -TATA407bearing No.DL- 1LG-0450. Jagan Lal was taken to Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi where the doctors declared him dead on arrival. The deceased was survived by his wife and two daughters and two sons. One of the daughters, Ms. Suman, passed away during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal. MAC.APP.No.466/2015 Page 1 of 4 The death of the deceased due to the insured vehicle being driven 2. rashly and negligently was established on the basis of the FIR, post-mortem report, the evidence on record, particularly the evidence of an eye-witness Mr. Vinod Kumar, who was returning home alongwith the deceased. The claimants sought compensation on the basis that the deceased was 3. earning about Rs. 8,000/- per month from his vocation as a vegetable vendor, however, in the absence of any proof in support of this claim the Tribunal accepted the minimum wages of an unskilled person as on 26.01.2008 as applicable to the deceased. Minimum wages were Rs. 3516/-, on which 50% loss of future prospects were added and 1/4th was deducted towards his personal expenses bringing the deceased’s income to Rs. 3955.50/- [Rs. 3516 + Rs. 1758/- (50% of Rs. 3516/-) = Rs. 5274/- less Rs. 1318.50/- (1/4th of Rs. 5274/-) i.e. Rs. 3955.50/-.].. This monthly earning was multiplied by 12. Based upon the post-mortem report, showing the age of the deceased as 35 years, a multiplier of 16 was applied giving the compensation towards loss of earning as Rs. 7,59,552/-. Additionally, Rs. 25,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs. 1 lakh each towards loss of consortium to the widow and loss of care and guidance for the minor children. Interest at the rate of 9% was awarded on the compensation amount from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 06.02.2008. Since the offending vehicle was insured, the insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation amount.
4. The award has been impugned by the appellant on the ground that there is an addition of 50% towards loss of future prospects on minimum wages of a self-employed person. The Court is unable to accept this contention for the reason that the compensation of the amount is just and MAC.APP.No.466/2015 Page 2 of 4 fair. In The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Suman & Ors., this Court has discussed a similar circumstance as under: the income of
"4. The Claims Tribunal has taken the minimum wages of Rs.3,589.90 and after adding 50% towards the future prospects, the total income of the deceased has been taken as Rs.5,384.85 (Rs.3589.90 + Rs.1,794.95). This Court is of the view that the occupation of the deceased as a professional driver having been sufficiently proved, the deceased can be safely presumed as Rs.5,384.85 per month even if future prospects are not awarded. It is not mandatory to resort the minimum wages in each and every case. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, AIR2012SC100in which 59 persons died in Uphaar tragedy and the Supreme Court granted compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the victims of above 20 years of age and Rs.7,50,000/- to the victims below 20 years of age on the basis of multiplier method. The Supreme Court applied the multiplier of 15 and deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses. The income of the victims aged more than 20 years was assumed to be Rs.8,333/- per month and that of victims aged less than 20 years was assumed to be Rs.6,249/- per month. The computation of the compensation awarded by the Supreme Court would be as under :-
"For victims aged more than 20 years:-
"(Rs.8,333/- less 1/3rd)x 12 x 15 = Rs.10 lakhs. For victims aged less than 20 years:-
"(Rs.6249/- less 1/3rd) x 15 = Rs.7.5 lakhs.
5. It is relevant to note that the Uphaar tragedy took place on 13th June, 1997 and the minimum wages at the relevant time were less than Rs.2600/-. MAC.APP9812015 Page 3 of 3 Although there was no proof of the income of the victims, the Supreme Court did not find it proper to apply the minimum wages.
6. This Court has applied the principles laid down in Uphaar tragedy case to compute the compensation in United India Insurance Co. V. Kanwar Lal, 2012 SCC Online Del 2411, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bal Kishan Pawar, 2012 SCC MAC.APP.No.466/2015 Page 3 of 4 Online Del 3201, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chander Dutt, 2012 SCC Online Del 2412, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sewa Ram, 2012 SCC Online Del 2413 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Komal, 2014 ACJ1540 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gaje Singh, 2012 ACJ2346and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhateri, 2012 SCC Online Del 2409.
7. Applying the principles laid down in Uphaar tragedy case, the be Rs.5,384.85.............................."
presumed deceased to income of the is In view of the above, the Court assumes that the monthly income of 5. the deceased, a vegetable vendor in June, 2008, as Rs.3,955.80 is just and proper. There is no reason to interfere with the award on this ground. Similarly, the compensation towards non-pecuniary amounts also is just and fair. There is no cause for the Court to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is without basis and is, accordingly dismissed. The statutory deposit be refunded to the appellant. MAY19 2017 kk NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
MAC.APP.No.466/2015 Page 4 of 4