MAC .APP.601/2008 Page 1 of 4 12 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 601/2008 Date of Decision: 20th April, 2009 % THE NEW INDIA ASSURANC CO LTD ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. versus SANJO DEVI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through : None. CORAM :- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT (Oral) 1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- has been awarded to respondents No.1 to 6. 2. The accident dated 20th – 21st January, 2005 resulted in the death of Dev Narain. Dev Narain was survived by his widow, parents and children who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal for compensation. 3. The deceased was aged 30 years at the time of the accident and was working as Electrician with the tent house earning Rs.5,500/- per month. However, in the absence of documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal took the MAC .APP.601/2008 Page 2 of 4 minimum wages of Rs.3,044/- per month and after considering the increase in minimum wages, the income for the purpose of computation was taken as Rs.5,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and applied the multiplier of 17 to compute the compensation of Rs.6,80,000/-. Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses, transportation of dead body and loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The total compensation awarded was Rs.7,20,000/-. 4. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on various grounds inter alia that increase in minimum wages should not have been considered; secondly, even if considered, the increase would be Rs.4,566/- [(Rs.3,044 + Rs.3,044 x 2)/2]; and lastly, lower multiplier should have been applied. 5. With respect to the income of the deceased, the increase in minimum wages should be taken by taking the average of Rs.3,044/- and its double which comes to Rs. 4,566/-. As such, the learned Tribunal was in error in taking Rs.5,000/-. However, the learned Tribunal was also in error in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased considering that the deceased left behind six legal representatives/dependents. Deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses is not the thumb rule and in the present MAC .APP.601/2008 Page 3 of 4 case, the deduction should have been 1/5th instead of 1/3rd. The learned Tribunal has also awarded lower amount towards loss of consortium and towards loss of love and affection. In Mohinder Kaur vs. Hira Nand Sindhi, 2007 ACJ 2123, the Apex Court has awarded interest @9% per annum on the compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium relating to the accident of 1982. The Madras High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sulochana, III (2007) ACC 50 (DB), has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- to each of the claimants towards loss of love and affection. This Court has also awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Amresh Kumar, 2005 ACJ 538. 6. Considering the aforesaid judgments, the compensation towards the loss of consortium and also towards loss of love and affection is on a lower side. 7. The award of the learned Tribunal does not warrant reduction considering the effect of excess of Rs.434/- per month in computing that personal expenses of the deceased have been deducted @ 1/3rd instead of 1/5th and the lower amount awarded towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. 8. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. 9. The Registry is directed to refund the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant within two weeks. MAC .APP.601/2008 Page 4 of 4 CM No.17270/2008 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 66 days in filing of this appeal is condoned. 2. CM stands disposed of. CM No.17269/2008 Dismissed. J.R. MIDHA, J APRIL 20, 2009 aj