Parbati v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

(ii) that the interest has been granted @7% when in fact it should be 9%.

3. Learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company, submits that there was no cogent document or other evidence produced in support of the averments that the deceased was working as a Raj Mistri. The interest @7% has also been correctly awarded, considering that it is an accident of 2014. It is submitted that there is no merit in the Appeal, which may be dismissed.

4. Submissions heard and the record perused.

5. Briefly stated, that on 03.05.2014, deceased, Mr. Bhairav @ Bhairav Ahirwar was driving his Motorcycle bearing Registration No. DL8S-BD- 8295 at a normal speed and was going from his residence at Sector-11, Rohini, to Sector -24, Rohini, Delhi via Rithala Metro Station, Delhi. At about 10:15 p.m., when he reached the opposite DDA Park, a Truck bearing registration No. HR69-5958, which was being driving in a rash and negligent manner by Respondent No. 1, Mr. Rajpal, hit the Motorcycle from behind and the Motorcyclist suffered fatal injuries.

6. FIR No. 485/2014 under Section 379/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ hereinafter) was registered at Police Station, Vijay Vihar, Delhi. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed by the Police, on the basis of the Charge-Sheet. The Claim Petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act was also filed by the Claimants.

7. In support of the income of the deceased, PW-1, Smt. Parbati, wife of the deceased deposed that at the time of accident, the age of her husband was 29 years. He was working as a Raj Mistri and earning Rs.16,000/- per month, out of which he was contributing Rs.13,000/- to Rs.14,000/- per month towards the household expenses. The witness was duly crossexamined on behalf of the Insurance Company wherein PW-1 had deposed that she had not filed any proof of income of the deceased.

8. The learned Tribunal in the impugned Award while referring to the testimony of PW-1, Smt. Parbati, observed that no income proof by way of Income-Tax Return or Statement of Bank Account, had been produced. It was observed that the Claimants had not been able to establish that the deceased was working as a Raj Mistri. Consequently, the Minimum Wages of the deceased were taken as Rs.9,438/- for non-matriculate workman.

9. Pertinently, the testimony of PW-1, Smt. Parbati that the deceased was working as a Raj Mistri, had not been questioned by any of the Respondent in the cross-examination. The only question put was a proof of his income, which was claimed to be Rs.16,000/- per month. It is also pertinent to note that the DAR had filed by the Police, on the basis of the Charge-Sheet wherein it is mandatorily required to verify the profession of the deceased. No such effort apparently has been made. Moreover, the Insurance Company also has not taken any steps to confirm and verify the profession or the income of the deceased. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1, Smt. Parbati about her husband being a Raj Mistri. Insofar as the documents in proof of his occupation are concerned, it cannot be overlooked that these are all unorganized sectors and there is no skill trainings imparted to become a Raj Mistri or appointment letters issued for engagement. To insist on some documentary evidence, may be a hyper technical approach, which is not warranted or justified especially in these compensation cases. Similar observations had been made in the Case of Neelam Devi and Ors. vs. Bikramjeet Singh & Ors., in MAC 972/2012, decided on 04.03.2014 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

10. The deceased is held to be a Raj Mistri and his income is taken as that of a skilled worker, which is Rs.10,374/-.

11. The Appellants have also sought enhancement of rate of interest from 7% to 9%. It cannot be overlooked that cogent reasons have been given for granting the rate of interest also it should not be overlooked that it is a case of accident, which occurred in 2014. There is no justification for enhancement in the rate of interest.

12. The entire compensation is consequently, recalculated as under:- S.No. Heads Compensation granted by the Tribunal Compensation granted by this Court

1. Income of Deceased (A) Rs.9,438/- Rs.10,374/-

2. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40% 40% i.e. 4149.[6]

3. Less-Personal Expenses of Deceased (C) ¼ ¼ (3630.9)

4. Monthly loss of Dependency [(A+B)- C=D] 10,853.[7] 10892.[7]

5. Annual loss of Dependency (Dx12) 130244.[4] 130712.[4]

6. Multiplier (E) 17 17

7. Total loss of Dependency Rs.20,21,619/- Rs. 22,22,110.[8]

8. Medical Expenses NIL NIL

9. Compensation for loss of Consortium (H) Rs. 2,40,000/- Rs. 2,40,000/-

10. Compensation for loss of Estate (I) Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-

11. Compensation towards funeral expenses (J) Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-

12. Total Compensation (F+G+H+I+J=K) 20,91,619.6/- 22,92,110.8/-

13. Rate of Interest Awarded 7% 7%

13. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. The compensation awarded as Rs.22,91,620/- is revised to Rs. 22,92,110.8/- along with interest @7% p.a. on the same terms as the impugned Award. The enhanced compensation be deposited by the Insurance Company, before the Tribunal within four weeks, which shall be disbursed, in terms of the Award dated 30.09.2022.

14. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE DECEMBER 5, 2024