While computing the insurance claim to be paid, it is necessary to account for the income of the deceased as equal to the minimum wages of the state in which the deceased was working instead of the state of residency: The High Court of Delhi
The Delhi High Court is of the view that in the absence of any documentary proof of income with respect to the occupation and income of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal ought to have taken the minimum wages of the State in which the deceased worked as the income of the deceased. The aforementioned was established by this court in the case of United Lindia Insurance Co Ltd v. Shakuntala &amp; Ors [MAC.APP. 135/2020 &amp; CM APPL. 8821/2020] which was decided by a single judge bench comprising Justice J.R. Midha on 18th June 2021. The facts of the case are as follows. An accident occurred in 2016 which took the life of Arjun, a 20 year old boy who worked as a vegetable seller in Delhi ad earned an amount of Rs. 12000 per month. Taking into account this income, the claims tribunal recognized a total compensation of Rs. 20,24,400 to be awarded. The petitioner herein has challenged this award. The arguments presented by the counsel for appellant at the time of hearing contended that at the time of the hearing that minimum wages of Rs.6,814.81 as applicable in U.P. at the relevant time be taken into consideration to compute the compensation as the deceased was resident of U.P. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 urged at the time of hearing that the deceased was working at Delhi and therefore, the minimum wages of Rs.9,724/- per month of Delhi be taken into consideration.
Date of Decision: 18th June 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI MAC.APP. 135 2020 & CM APPL. 8821 2020 SHAKUNTALA & ORS UNITED LINDIA INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Animesh Sinha Advocate Through: Mr. Nitin Garg Advocate Respondents HON BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT The petitioner has challenged the award dated 13th November 2019 of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.20 24 400 has been awarded to the claimants respondents No.1 and 2. The accident dated 21st October 2016 resulted in the death of Arjun. The deceased was aged 20 years at the time of accident and was survived by his parents who claimed compensation. The deceased was a vegetable seller and according to the respondents No. 1 and 2 the deceased was earning Rs.12 000 per month. The Claims Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.12 000 per month added 40% towards future prospects deducted 50% towards personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 18 to compute the loss of dependency as Rs.18 14 400 . The MAC.APP. 135 2020 Digitally SignedBy:RAJENDER SINGHKARKISigning Date:19.06.202113:32:03Signature Not Verified Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.1 00 000 towards loss of love and affection Rs.80 000 towards loss of consortium Rs.15 000 towards loss to the estate and Rs.15 000 towards funeral expenses. Total compensation awarded is Rs.20 24 400 . Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that minimum wages of Rs.6 814.81 as applicable in U.P. at the relevant time be taken into consideration to compute the compensation as the deceased was resident of U.P. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 urged at the time of hearing that the deceased was working at Delhi and therefore the minimum wages of Rs.9 724 per month of Delhi be taken into consideration. This Court is of the view that in the absence of any documentary proof of income with respect to the occupation and income of the deceased the Claims Tribunal ought to have taken the minimum wages of Delhi as the income of the deceased. In the present case the minimum wages of Delhi at the relevant time were Rs.9 724 per month which is taken as the income of the deceased instead of Rs.12 000 per month taken by the Claims Tribunal. Taking the income of the deceased as Rs.9 724 per month adding 40% towards future prospects deducting 50% towards the personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 18 the loss of is computed as Rs.14 71 000 Rs.14 70 268.80 rounded of) Adding the non pecuniary compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal the total compensation is computed as Rs.16 81 000 . MAC.APP. 135 2020 Digitally SignedBy:RAJENDER SINGHKARKISigning Date:19.06.202113:32:03Signature Not Verified The appeal is allowed and the compensation amount awarded the Claims Tribunal is reduced from Rs.20 24 400 Rs.16 81 000 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 09th January 2017. Pending application is disposed of. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has deposited Rs.21 24 793 in compliance of this Court order dated 04th March 2020. According to the calculation by the Accounts Officer of this Court the compensation amount of Rs.16 81 000 along with interest @ 9% per annum upto the date of the deposit is computed as Rs.22 41 169.61. As such the balance amount of Rs.1 16 376.91 is liable to be deposited by the appellant. The appellant is therefore directed to deposit Rs.1 17 000 with DSLSA within four weeks. 10. The details passbooks of savings bank accounts of respondents No.1 and 2 along with necessary endorsement from the Bank are in the Lower Court Record at page numbers357 to 387. The particulars of the bank accounts of respondents No.1 and 2 are as under: i) Shakuntala @ ShakuntlaA c No. 23540100025917 Bank Bank of Baroda Soodanpur Distt. Bareilly BranchIFSC Code BARB0SOODAN ii) PappuA c No.23540100025914 MAC.APP. 135 2020 Digitally SignedBy:RAJENDER SINGHKARKISigning Date:19.06.202113:32:03Signature Not Verified Bank Bank of Baroda Soodanpur Distt. Bareilly BranchIFSC Code BARB0SOODAN 11. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to transfer the FDR of Rs.21 24 793 along with interest to DSLSA within three weeks whereupon DSLSA shall disburse the total amount to respondents No.1 and 2 in terms of the principles laid down in Rajesh Tyagi v. Jaibir Singh dated 08th January 2021 12. List for reporting compliance with respect to deposit of Rs.1 17 000 before Joint Registrar on 06th August 2021. 13. The statutory amount be refunded back to the appellant after the deposit of the balance amount. JUNE 18 2021 J.R. MIDHA J. MAC.APP. 135 2020 Digitally SignedBy:RAJENDER SINGHKARKISigning Date:19.06.202113:32:03Signature Not Verified 