Smt. Meena Khanna v. Ram Niwas

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. The award impugned is dated 19.07.2010 vide which compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,51,100/- had been awarded in favour of the claimant. There is no dispute that the deceased aged about 58 years, namely, Hari Kishan, had died on 16.06.2007. Since his salary could not be proved, the minimum wages drawn on the relevant date were taken into account which 2011:DHC:3971 was Rs. 3470/- on the date of the accident. The counsel for the appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Award under the head of “loss of dependency” which is Rs. 2,81,000/-. His contention is that the minimum wages would have doubled in the next 10 years but this aspect of price rise and index inflation has not been considered by the Tribunal. The Award under this head calls interference. The counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court which is reported, “I (2010) ACC 120 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jagpati & Ors.” wherein similar facts where the deceased was aged 58 years minimum wages had been considered and keeping in view the cateena of judgments of this Court reported in “Kanwar Devi Vs. Bansal Roadways, I (2009) ACC 583”, “Lekh Raj Vs. Suram Singh, II (2007) ACC 107” and “National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Renu Devi, III (2008) ACC 134,” the fact of minimum wages getting doubled over a period of 10 years because of inflation and rise in price index, judicial notice had been taken of this factum and 50% had been added to the minimum wages which was drawn by the deceased.

2. The ratio of this judgment would be fully applicable to the instant facts. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant to dislodge this argument by relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court reported in “2011 SCC PS Somanathan & Ors. Vs. District Insurance Officers & Anr.”, “2008 (3) SCC (Cri) 95 Rajesh Kumar @ Raju Vs. Yudhvir Singh & Anr.”, “2007 ACJ 515 UP State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sarita Tyagi & Ors.”, and “2009 (13) SCC 656 Raj Rani & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.” is mis-placed. They were all on other distinct propositions.

3. The Award under the head of “loss of dependency” would accordingly now read as under: 3470 X 1735 (50%) = 5205 – one quarter (expenses) = to 1301 = 3904 X 12 X 9 = Rs. 4,21,632/-

4. The modified amount under the head of “loss of dependency” would be Rs. 4,21,632/-. No other ground has been urged. Appeal is disposed of in terms of the above.

INDERMEET KAUR, J. AUGUST 5, 2011 Rs