AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ANISH DAYAL, J. (ORAL)
This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company assailing the award dated 15th January 2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (‘MACT/Tribunal’), Saket Courts, New Delhi, in Suit no. 54/2013, whereby compensation of Rs. 28,27,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum was awarded to claimants.
The accident occurred on 28th December 2012 at about 09.30 p.m., when the deceased Yogesh Pal, aged 34 years, was standing near the main gate of Shanti Farms, Chandan Hola. In the meantime, one TSR bearing registration No. DL 1LL 8028 driven by one Ameen in a rash and negligent manner, hit him with great force, as a result of which he succumbed to his injuries.
PW-1, the wife of the deceased, gave her testimony and produced a salary slip marked as Ex. PW1/1, issued by Arvind Khanna of Shanti Farms, stating that Yogesh Pal was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. In her cross-examination, she did say that she did not have any document that he was earning a regular income aside from the Salary Certificate.
In addition, PW-3, Mr. R. K. Bharadwaj, Manager of Shanti Farms, deposed before the Tribunal and produced the salary vouchers reflecting payment of salary to Yogesh Pal at Rs. 12,000/- per month.
The Court has perused the salary vouchers, which also contain details of payments made to other staff members, and extracts are reproduced below:
Similar records pertaining to subsequent months have also been placed on record as part of the evidence.
An authorisation letter has also been issued by Mr. Arvind Khanna to authorise Mr. R. K. Bharadwaj to verify the documents related to Yogesh Pal.
In view of the aforesaid documentary evidence, this Court finds that the assessment made by the MACT in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 12,000/- is not amiss.
The contention of Mr. Pradeep Gaur, counsel for the Insurance Company, that minimum wages ought to have been adopted in the absence of proof of income, is untenable.
The Court has already examined the assessment of income and laid down guidelines in Savita & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026: DHC:3626. The relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:
“30.Principles which may be culled out from these cases cited above, and be used as guidepost for assessment of benchmark income, can be summarised as under:
A. Lack of documentary proof
i.In the informal sector, it may not always be possible to produce documentary proof of employment and payment of wages, which are usually paid in cash.
ii.Where there is lack of documentary proof to support that the victim was working in Delhi, reliance may be placed on facts and circumstances of the case to determine whether, the victim was residing in Delhi on the date of accident, in conjunction with documents such as driver’s license, voter ID card, etc. Minimum wages of place of work will be then considered.
iii.If documentary proof has not been filed, the Court can use the minimum wage benchmark of an appropriate category i.e., unskilled, skilled, matriculate, etc., as a benchmark for assessment, but not be constrained to grant the lowest tier.
B. Oral testimony of family members, employers
i.Assessment of income can also be done on the statement of the immediate legal heir of deceased, i.e., wife, father, or immediate family member, along with a statement of the employer, if any. Testimonies of the above-mentioned persons should be consistent and there should be an unsuccessful rebuttal by the Insurance Company or the contesting party.
ii.If the testimonies are not reliable, the Court can use the minimum wage benchmark of an appropriate category i.e., unskilled, skilled, matriculate, etc., as a benchmark for assessment, but not be constrained to grant the lowest tier.
C. Proof of employment
i.If documents in support of employment inter alia, Salary/Wage Certificate, Income Tax Returns (‘ITRs’) have been filed, same shall be considered.
ii.In the absence of such proof, assessment done by the Court has to be based on some intelligent guesswork and may not be restricted to the minimum wage parameter after taking into account a holistic analysis of the evidence on record. For example, place of employment, testimony of co-workers, or any other person who testifies in favour of the injured/deceased employee.
iii.The entire assessment is ultimately imbued with an element of approximation and guesswork, as part of the inquiry proceedings and not on exactitude.
iv.Reliance may be placed on State specific legislations, as well as Minimum Wage Notifications to lean on for support, in order to determine what qualifies as a skilled worker and an unskilled worker, with respect to the vocation of the victim.”
(emphasis supplied)
Accordingly, the notional income will be considered at Rs.12,000/- in line with principles enunciated in Savita (supra).
However, the future prospects, which were awarded at 50% by the Tribunal, are liable to be reduced to 40% in terms of the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, considering that the deceased was 34 years of age at the time of the accident.
Conventional heads such as loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses are also to be aligned in terms of Pranay Sethi (supra). Compensation awarded under the head of loss of love and affection shall be nil, in view of the law laid down in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780.
As there are six claimants, namely, the wife, two daughters, one son, and the parents of the deceased, loss of consortium is awarded as follows: spousal consortium to the wife, parental consortium to the three children, and filial consortium to the mother and father of the deceased. Accordingly, each claimant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/-, totalling to Rs.2,40,000/-.
Accordingly, the revised compensation is as under:
| S.no | Heads of Compensation | Awarded by the Tribunal | Awarded by this Court |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Loss of income per month (A) | Rs. 12,000/- | Rs. 12,000/- |
| 2. | Future Prospects @40% (B) | Rs. 6,000/- | Rs. 4,800/- |
| 3. | Less Personal expenses of the deceased (C) 1/4rd | Rs. 4,500/- | Rs. 4,200/- |
| 4. | Monthly Loss of Dependency (A+B-C=D) | Rs. 13,500/- | Rs. 12,600/- |
| 5. | Annual loss of dependency (D x 12=E) | Rs. 1,62,000/- | Rs. 1,51,200/- |
| 6. | Multiplier (F) | 16 | 16 |
| 7. | Total loss of dependency (E x F = G) | Rs. 25,92,000/- | Rs. 24,19,200/- |
| 8. | Medical expenses (H) | Nil | Nil |
9. 10. | Compensation for loss of consortium (I) Compensation for loss of love and affection (J) | Rs. 1,00,000/-Rs. 1,00,000/- | Rs. 2,40,000/-Nil |
| 11. | Compensation for loss of estate (K) | Rs. 10,000/- | Rs. 15,000/- |
| 12. | Compensation towards funeral expenses (L) | Rs.25,000/- | Rs. 15,000/- |
| 13. | Total compensation (G+H+I+J+K+L = M) | Rs. 28,27,000/- | Rs. 26,89,200/- |
| 14. | Reduced Compensation | Rs. 1,37,800/- | |
| 15. | Rate of Interest Awarded | 9% | 9% |
Accordingly, the compensation is reduced by Rs.1,37,800/-(‘reduced compensation’)
By order dated 28th April 2015, this Court had directed the deposit of the entire awarded amount with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch. The directions regarding release of the amount were contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said order. Release of Rs. 2,50,000/- was directed in favour of respondent no. 1 and Rs. 50,000/- each was directed to be released to the respondent nos. 2-6.
Mr. Pradeep Gaur, counsel for respondent, further states that on 12th May 2023, this Court directed additional release of Rs. 2,50,000/- to respondent no. 1 and Rs.50,000/- each to respondent nos. 2-6, in terms of paragraph 5 the said order.
Accordingly, the balance amount (original compensation minus reduced compensation), along with accrued interest, shall be released to the claimants in a lump sum, considering that the Award pertains to the year 2015 and the accident occurred in the year 2012.
In view of the reduction in the compensation awarded, the excess amount lying deposited, along with the accrued interest, shall be refunded to the Insurance Company.
Mr. S. N. Parashar, counsel for claimant, submits that respondent no. 5 has since passed away. Accordingly, the share of respondent no. 5 shall be divided equally amongst respondent nos. 1-4 and 6.
Statutory deposit, if any, shall be refunded to appellate/Insurance Company.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Pending applications are rendered infructuous.
Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.