* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI MACA No.496/2008 Date of Decision: July 09, 2010 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. . .... Appellant through Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate versus VEENA ARORA & ORS ..... Respondents through Mr. Santosh Chaurihaa, Advocate with Mr. Pramod Kharwar, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? REKHA SHARMA, I. CORAL) C.M. No.13230/2008 This is an application by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 has no objection if the delay is condoned. Accordingly, the application is allowed. MAC App. No.496/2008 This appeal has been preferred by the New India Assurance Company Limited against the award of the Motor Accident Claims MACA No.496/2008 Page 1 of 3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified Tribunal, Patiala House Courts (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated April 26, 2008 on two counts. Firstly, that the Tribunal ought to have taken minimum wages as the income of the deceased instead of Rs.4500/- per month and secondly, that the personal expenses of the deceased who was a bachelor, should have been taken as one-half of his income instead of one-third. A perusal of the impugned award goes to show that one of the claimants, namely, the mother of the deceased had entered the witness-box and had deposed that her deceased son Pankaj Arora was working as a Sales Executive with Sharma Garments in Faridabad and was getting a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. She also placed on record his salary certificate which was exhibited as Ex.PWl/4. The Tribunal though has observed that the Insurance Company led no evidence challenging the salary certificate and gave only routine suggestions in the cross-examination on PW.l, but after having so observed, it has taken the income of the deceased to be Rs.4500/- per month instead of Rs.6,000/- per month. This defies the logic. However, since no appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the impugned order, I see no reason to disturb this finding. As regards the other submission of the Insurance Company that the personal expenses of the deceased should have been taken as one-half, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants/ respondents No.1 to 3 that the deceased though was a bachelor but besides a dependent mother, he also had an unmarried sister and a mentally retarded brother and they too were also dependent upon him, as his father had already expired. Having regard to this fact, MACA No.496/2008 Page 2 of 3 I am of the view that the Tribunal committed no error in deducting one-third of the earnings of the deceased towards his personal expenses while computing the compensation. For the fore-going reasons, there is no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed. The Registry is directed to refund the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- which was deposited as a pre-condition to the hearing of the appeal. JULY 09, 2010 ka MACA No.496/2008 REhlS-HAR--MA-, J-. Page 3 of 3