MAC.APP. 1071/2011 Page 1 of 2 $~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: November 30, 2011 + MAC.APP. 1071/2011 ASHA DEVI & ANR ..... Appellants Through Ms. Nikita Sharma, Advocate versus S SUDHIR & ORS ..... Respondents Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL J U D G M E N T % G.P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) CM No.21669/2011(Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. CM. No.21670/2011(delay) Delay condoned for the reasons as stated in the appeal disposed off. MAC.APP. 1071/2011 1. The Appellants seek enhancement of compensation in respect of death of deceased Rewati Lal, who died in a motor accident which took place on 18.03.2007. The Appellants case was that the deceased was working as a driver privately and getting a salary of Rs.6,000/- to 7,000/- per month. In absence of any proof of income, the Tribunal took the minimum wages of MAC.APP. 1071/2011 Page 2 of 2 skilled worker on the date of accident i.e. Rs.3894/- per month, added 50% towards indexation on account of inflation on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Kanwar Devi Vs. Bansal Roadways, 2008 ACJ 2182 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Renu Devi, 2009 ACJ 1921, applied the multiplier of 15 as per age of the deceased on the basis of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and calculated the dependency as Rs.5,84,160/-. The Tribunal further awarded the conventional sums in terms of the Supreme Court judgment in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (supra) towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses and loss of love and affection and computed the total compensation at `6,16,160/- 2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.7,000/- per month and the Tribunal ought to have taken the same into consideration to arrive at the loss of dependency. No evidence with regard to the deceased’s income was produced before the Tribunal. Thus, in my view, the Tribunal rightly took the minimum wages of a skilled worker to calculate dependency. Otherwise also, the deceased’s income was claimed to be Rs.6,000/- to 7,000/- per month and after giving the benefit of 50% of the minimum wages to offset the inflation, the monthly income taken by the Tribunal came close to Rs.6,000/-. It cannot be said that the compensation awarded i.e. Rs.6,16,160/- is not just and unreasonable. There is no ground to interfere in the impugned award. 3. The Appeal is dismissed. No costs. G.P. MITTAL, J. NOVEMBER 30, 2011 pst