ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Vaidya Nath Chaupal and Another

Indermeet Kaur, J.—This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. The only grievance is that minimum wages had been taken into account upon which 50% has been added which is against the principle applicable; attention has been drawn to a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Kumari Lalita ILR (1982) II Delhi as also a judgment of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in Lachhman Singh and Others Vs. Gurmit Kaur and Others, . It is pointed out that in the judgment of Kumari Lalita (Supra) a Bench of this Court had noted that the factor of future inflation cannot be taken into account in the estimate of damages as this will introduce speculation and uncertainty in the estimate. This judgment was of the year 1982.

The consistent view of the coordinate Benches of this Court has been that keeping in view the price rise and index inflation which is not akin to future prospects, judicial notice is taken of the fact that in the next 10 years because of price rise and index inflation minimum wages are bound to increase by 50%. This has been held in a catena of judgments of this Court reported in Kanwar Devi and Others Vs. Bansal Roadways and Others, Lekh Raj and Another Vs. Suram Singh and Others, and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Renu Devi and Others,

Minimum wages have admittedly increased over the period of time; in the judgment of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Budhi Ram and Ors. 2008 (100) DRJ 607, this Court had noted that in the preceding 10 years, there is almost 225% increase in these wages; in the year 1980 wages for a skilled worker was 320/- per month; 10 years later i.e. in the year 1990 the minimum wages were computed at 1,043/- per month; this increase is not akin to future prospects; this increase in the wages is a bare minimum and is determined by the Government after taking into account the price index, cost of living, inflation and denunciation of currency value; it is a cost neutralizing factor. The factor of uncertainty and speculation which had weighed in the mind of the Division Bench is ruled out as the minimum wages are taken as notified in the Schedule of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948; in the judgment of Division Bench, this question had even otherwise not come up for consideration; scientific data available under the Minimum Wages Act on the basis of which the judgments of Kanwar Devi, Lekhraj and Renu Devi (Supra) had been passed was not available; the consideration on account of uncertainty in estimate and speculation is thus inapplicable. Appeal has been assailed only on the aforenoted ground.

Appeal has No. merit. Dismissed.