Full Text
Translation output
'p
.*t
A-34 o/o
29.09.2011
Present : Ms,Neeraja Sachdeva, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.I.A.Rehmani, Advocate for the respondents.
+MAC APPEAL No.118/2O1-1 & CM No.9743/2011 (for stav)
*
The order impugned before this CourL is the Award dated
06.11 .201,0 vide which the total compensation in the sum of Rs.7 ,64,4001- had been awarded in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased victim.
Record shows that on 06.1.2005 deceased Irshad Khan was driving his vehicle when he suffered an accident as a result of which he succumbed to his , injuries. Criminal proceedings have also been iaunched against the driver of the offending vehicle. oral and documentary evidence was led. Award in the aforenoted case was accordingly passed in favour of the claimants.
This appeal has been filed by the insurance company. The onry ground taken in the appeal is that the loss of financial dependency in the sum of Rs.7,34,400/- in on the higher side. Contention is that although minimum wages of the deceased had been taken into account, yet the learned MACT has committed a folly in doubling the minimum wages giving benefit of future prospects to the claimants.
This submission has been opposed.
Record shows that since there was no documentary evidence of the income of the deceased, minimum wages of a skilled labourer had been taken into account. This was for the reason that the deceaseo was working as a driver; there is no quarrel to the amount of the minimum wages which has be taken into consideration. The minimum waqes on
2011:DHC:15056
/*
.1
3400t-
.*t
A-34 o/o
29.09.2011
Present : Ms,Neeraja Sachdeva, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.I.A.Rehmani, Advocate for the respondents.
+MAC APPEAL No.118/2O1-1 & CM No.9743/2011 (for stav)
*
The order impugned before this CourL is the Award dated
06.11 .201,0 vide which the total compensation in the sum of Rs.7 ,64,4001- had been awarded in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased victim.
Record shows that on 06.1.2005 deceased Irshad Khan was driving his vehicle when he suffered an accident as a result of which he succumbed to his , injuries. Criminal proceedings have also been iaunched against the driver of the offending vehicle. oral and documentary evidence was led. Award in the aforenoted case was accordingly passed in favour of the claimants.
This appeal has been filed by the insurance company. The onry ground taken in the appeal is that the loss of financial dependency in the sum of Rs.7,34,400/- in on the higher side. Contention is that although minimum wages of the deceased had been taken into account, yet the learned MACT has committed a folly in doubling the minimum wages giving benefit of future prospects to the claimants.
This submission has been opposed.
Record shows that since there was no documentary evidence of the income of the deceased, minimum wages of a skilled labourer had been taken into account. This was for the reason that the deceaseo was working as a driver; there is no quarrel to the amount of the minimum wages which has be taken into consideration. The minimum waqes on
2011:DHC:15056
/*
.1
3400t-
the date of the death of the victim of a skilled labourer were Rs. per month. Giving the benefit of 50% inflation which was on account of price rise and index inflation which the Coordinate Benches of this Court noting that this price rise inflation is not akin to future prospects; the aforenoted benefit had been afforded. Accordingly the salary of the deceased was computed at Rs.5100/- per month; in terms of the
JUDGMENT
reported in 2009 (6) Scale L29 Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. the correct multiplier was LB. There is no quarrel on this; amount computed under the head of 'loss of dependency' was thus calculated at Rs.7,34,400l-.
In view of the catena of judgments reported in 2008 ACJ 2L82
Delhi Kanwar Deui & Ors. Vs. Bansal Roadwa_vs & Ors., 2007 ACJ 2165
Lekh Ra-i & Anr. Vs.Suram Sinqh & Ors.2009 ACJ 1.921 (Delhi) National
Insurance Compan_v Ltd. Vs. Renu Deui this figure suffers from no infirmity.
Appeal has not been challenged on any other ground. Dismissed.
Statutory amount be released in favaour of the insurance company and the awarded amount be disbursed. to the claimafrts in terms of the
I
Award. L/
UV
INDERMEET KAU& J.
SEPTEMBER 29,?OLL nandan
.-lr-;
$ e,t^> c4 zpqq(rt
- tl yr
@*li '/c',4"ft
2011:DHC:15056
Corporation & Anr. the correct multiplier was LB. There is no quarrel on this; amount computed under the head of 'loss of dependency' was thus calculated at Rs.7,34,400l-.
In view of the catena of judgments reported in 2008 ACJ 2L82
Delhi Kanwar Deui & Ors. Vs. Bansal Roadwa_vs & Ors., 2007 ACJ 2165
Lekh Ra-i & Anr. Vs.Suram Sinqh & Ors.2009 ACJ 1.921 (Delhi) National
Insurance Compan_v Ltd. Vs. Renu Deui this figure suffers from no infirmity.
Appeal has not been challenged on any other ground. Dismissed.
Statutory amount be released in favaour of the insurance company and the awarded amount be disbursed. to the claimafrts in terms of the
I
Award. L/
UV
INDERMEET KAU& J.
SEPTEMBER 29,?OLL nandan
.-lr-;
$ e,t^> c4 zpqq(rt
- tl yr
@*li '/c',4"ft
2011:DHC:15056