AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs. 6,64,090/- awarded for the death of an unmarried girl Neha who was aged about 19 years, had passed her 10+2 examination and was pursuing further studies by a correspondence course. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that the deceased was working as a teacher in B.L. Shiksha Sadan, High School, Sonipat and was getting a salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month. In the absence of any documentary evidence in the shape of an appointment letter or payment of salary or examination of any witness of the employer, the Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of a matriculate, added 50% towards inflation to compute the loss of dependency as Rs. 6,39,090.
It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that since there was no evidence of gainful employment or future prospects, the Claims Tribunal was not justified in making any addition either towards future prospects or towards inflation.
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, Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Limited Vs. Air Liquide Deutschland Gmbh and Others, 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.
The Claims Tribunal in the absence of any cogent evidence with regard to the deceased''s employment was justified in taking minimum wages of a matriculate for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency. Addition on account of inflation, however, was not justified. The loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,26,060/-. On addition of sums of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/- each towards loss to estate and funeral expenses, the overall compensation comes to Rs. 4,71,060/-.
The compensation thus stands reduced from Rs. 6,64,090/- to Rs. 4,71,060/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of deposit in this Court.
The excess amount of Rs. 1,93,030/- along with proportionate interest and the interest accrued during the pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
The compensation awarded shall be released/held in Fixed Deposit in favour of the Respondents No.1 and 2 in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.
The Appeal is allowed in above terms. The statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.