AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appellant Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. impugns the award dated 13.12.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the ground that the compensation granted is excessive and arbitrary.
This case relates to the death of one Joginder @ Yogender Singh, who was aged 29 years (as per matriculation certificate and Voter ID card) at the time of the accident, which took place on 16.01.2010. The deceased was survived by a widow, three children and his parents. In the claim petition filed before the Tribunal Respondents No.1 to 6 claimed that the deceased was a self-employed person working as a Painter, had passed 12th standard and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The Respondent placed on record a vendor certificate Ex. PW-1/3 under the national policy for street vendors to prove that he was running a stall (as a Painter). The accident took place while the deceased was painting a number plate on a car. The Tribunal took the deceased''s minimum wages to be Rs.6,448/- , added 50% towards increase in minimum wages, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses (as per the number of dependants) and applied the multiplier of ''17'' to compute the dependency as Rs.14,68,800/- . After adding compensation towards loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, overall compensation of Rs.16,33,800/- was awarded by the Tribunal.
The contentions raised on Appellant''s behalf are:
(i) There was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased;
(ii) Minimum wages for a skilled worker/ matriculate were wrongly taken as Rs.6,448/- instead of Rs.4,401/- .
(iii) Increase of 50% was wrongly given in respect of the minimum wages.
CONTENTION NO.(i)
In order to prove culpable negligence on the part of Respondent No.7, Respondents No.1 to 6 examined PW-2 Satinder Singh, who deposed that on 16.01.2001 at about 1:45 P.M. he along with the deceased was writing number on the number plate of vehicle No.DL-4CAD-3276. A Santro car No.DL-8CNA-0910 being driven rashly and negligently came from the side of G-Block, Vikaspuri and crushed the deceased under the wheel of the driver side. Although, a plea of contributory negligence was raised before the Tribunal yet nothing was pleaded in the written statement filed by the Appellant nor anything was brought out in PW-2''s cross-examination to show that the deceased was negligent. Respondent No.7 the driver of the Santro car remained ex-parte. The Insurance Company also failed to produce the driver to rebut PW-2''s testimony. In the circumstances, the Tribunal''s finding attributing negligence on Respondent No.7''s part cannot be faulted.
CONTENTIONS No.(ii) & (iii)
The Respondent''s claimed the deceased''s monthly income to be Rs.12,000/- . No document was placed on record to prove the deceased''s income. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in taking minimum wages of a matriculate/ skilled worker to compute the dependency. The minimum wages of a skilled worker or a matriculate were Rs.4,377/- and Rs.4,401/- respectively on 16.01.2010. The same were revised to Rs.6,448/- w. e. f. 01.02.2010 i.e. just after 15 days of the accident. The Tribunal fell into error in taking the minimum wages on the date of the accident as Rs.6,448/- . There could have been 50% addition in calculating the dependency in view of the judgments of this Court as held in UPSRTC v. Munni Devi, IV (2009) ACC 879 ; National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Renu Devi and Others, and Narinder Bishal & Anr. v. Rambir Singh & Ors. MAC APP. 1007-08/2006 decided by this Court on 20th February, 2008.
The fact that the minimum wages were increased by almost 45% w. e. f. 01.02.2010 to the previous wages shows that the minimum wages are increased not only to offset inflation but also to provide better standard of living to the lowest paid workers in the country.
The compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded towards love and affection is on the higher side. The trend of the High Courts and the Supreme Court is to award a nominal sum under the head of loss of love and affection when the loss of dependency is fully taken care of as held in the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Sri. K.R. Madhusudhan and Others Vs. The Administrative Officer and Another, where a sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded towards loss of love and affection. The revised compensation works out as under:
Sl. No.
Head of Compensation
Compensation granted by the High Court
1.
Loss of dependency
Rs.10,09,800/-
2.
Loss of estate (as awarded by the Tribunal)
Rs.10,000/-
3.
Funeral expenses (as awarded by the Tribunal)
Rs.5,000/-
4.
Loss of love and affection
Rs.25,000/-
Total
Rs.10,49,800/-
Apportionment of compensation:
Respondents No.2, 3 & 4
Sl. No.
Respondent/ Name of the Person
Total amount to be disbursed
Amount to be released in cash
1.
Respondent No.2, Priyanka Kumari Respondent No.3, Deepak Respondent No.4, Pinki
Rs.1,50,000/- each (along with proportionate interest)
2.
Respondent No.5, Devdhari Singh
Rs.50,000/- (along with proportionate interest)
Rs.50,000/-
3.
Respondent No.6, Devrajo Devi
Rs.1,50,000/- (along with proportionate interest)
Rs.50,000/-
4.
Respondent No.1, Gita Devi
Rs.3,99,800/- (along with proportionate interest)
Rs.1,00,000/-
The amount payable to Respondents No.2 to 4 shall be held in Fixed Deposit till they attain the age of 21 years. After disbursing a cash of Rs.1,00,000/- to Respondent No.1 Geeta Devi, rest of the amount payable to Respondent No.1 Geeta Devi shall be held in Fixed Deposit for a period of 5 years. After disbursing a cash of Rs.50,000/- to Respondent No.6 Devrajo Devi, rest of the amount i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- shall be held in Fixed Deposit for a period of 3 years. The entire amount of Rs.50,000/- along with proportionate interest payable to Respondent No.5 shall be released to him forthwith. The amount to be held in Fixed Deposit shall be held in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi.
The appeal is allowed in above terms.
A copy of this order be communicated to UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi.