Judgment:
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:
19. h November, 2012 + MAC.APP. 268/2012 ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ...... Appellant Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv. versus SH. LAXMAN & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.
(ORAL) 1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `1,82,500/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) for the death of Lala Ram, who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 25.02.2007.
2. The finding on negligence reached by the Claims Tribunal is not challenged by the Appellant Insurance Company. Thus, the same has attained finality.
3. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that the deceased used to earn `5,000/- per month from the work of ironing clothes.
4. In the absence of any cogent evidence with regard to the deceaseds income, the Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of an unskilled worker, added 50% towards inflation, deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses and applied the multiplier of 5 (as the deceased was aged 68 years) to compute the loss of dependency as `1,57,500/-.
5. The Claims Tribunal further awarded a sum of `10,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss to estate and `5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the overall compensation of `1,82,500/- was awarded in favour of the Claimants.
6. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that since the deceased was aged about 68 years, no addition towards inflation could have been made to compute the loss of dependency.
7. I agree with the submission.
8. It may further be noticed that the deceased was engaged in the job of ironing clothes. Thus, the income of the deceased should have been taken as the minimum wages of a semi-skilled worker instead of an unskilled worker.
9. The loss of dependency thus comes to `1,09,080/- (3636/- x 1/2 x 12 x
5) as against `1,57,500/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
10. The compensation awarded towards non pecuniary damages was on the lower side. I would make a provision of `25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and `10,000/- each towards loss to estate and funeral expenses.
11. Thus, the overall compensation comes to `1,54,080/- as against `1,82,500/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
12. In this case as a total sum of `1,82,500/- was awarded by the Claims Tribunal, I would not like to interfere with the impugned judgment for only an amount of `28,420/-, particularly when the case relates to the death of the father of the Claimants.
13. Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed.
14. The statutory deposit of `25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
15. Pending Applications also stand disposed of. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE NOVEMBER 19 2012 vk