Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 747 (DEL)

Neelam Devi v. Bikramjeet Singh

2014-03-04

SURESH KAIT

body2014
JUDGMENT : Suresh Kait, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 2.5.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation as under: Interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum was also awarded from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued that PW-1, Neelam Devi, widow of the deceased, deposed that her husband was a mason and was earning Rs. 10,000 per month. However, the learned Tribunal has considered his salary as Rs. 5,278 as per Minimum Wages Act, 1948 applicable to an unskilled person as on 1.2.2010. 2. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in considering the salary of the deceased as an unskilled person as he was working as a mason. On this fact, neither any cross-examination was conducted nor any contrary witness examined by the appellant insurance company. Therefore, there was no occasion before the learned Tribunal not to rely upon the testimony of PW-1 and consider the salary of the deceased applicable to a skilled person. 3. Learned counsel further submitted that on the date of the accident, the deceased was 39-40 years old. He left behind a young widow, two minor daughters and one minor son. Despite that learned Tribunal has granted Rs. 25,000 for loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000 each for loss of consortium and for funeral expenses which is on lower side. 4. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Vimal Kanwar and Others vs. Kishore Dan and Others, (2013) 7 SCC 476 . In the latter case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of love and affection for daughter and Rs. 1,00,000 each towards loss of love and affection for the widow and mother, i.e. Rs. 2,00,000 and Rs. 25,000 for funeral expenses. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that though wife of the deceased has deposed that deceased was a mason and was earning Rs. 10,000 per month, however, she failed to produce any cogent evidence to this effect, therefore, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that though wife of the deceased has deposed that deceased was a mason and was earning Rs. 10,000 per month, however, she failed to produce any cogent evidence to this effect, therefore, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,278 applicable to an unskilled person at the relevant time as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that as regards the issue of non-pecuniary damages, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is the discretion of the courts to award the compensation under these heads keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the deceased was working as a labourer having three minor children and a young widow. Hence, taking into consideration all these aspects, the learned Tribunal has sufficiently granted compensation for non-pecuniary damages. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. So far as the avocation of the deceased is concerned, PW-1, Neelam Devi, widow of the deceased, has specifically deposed that the deceased was a mason and was earning Rs. 10,000 per month. Generally, the labourers are engaged with one employer for a short time and not permanently. Thereafter, they have to search for another work site, therefore, their employment cannot be termed as regular, barring very few who work with a big establishment where work is of perennial nature. 9. In the present case, neither any cross-examination was conducted on this issue nor any witness has been examined by the respondents to rebut the testimony of PW-1, widow of the deceased. Therefore, there was no occasion before the learned Tribunal not to consider the salary of the deceased applicable to a skilled person at the relevant time as per Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 10. Therefore, keeping in view the evidence of PW-1, I assess the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,448, applicable to a skilled person at the relevant time. 11. So far as the non-pecuniary damages are concerned, taking into consideration the dictums of the Apex Court in the cases of Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Vimal Kanwar and Others vs. Kishore Dan and Others, (2013) 7 SCC 476 , justice would be met if the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 11. So far as the non-pecuniary damages are concerned, taking into consideration the dictums of the Apex Court in the cases of Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Vimal Kanwar and Others vs. Kishore Dan and Others, (2013) 7 SCC 476 , justice would be met if the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000 for loss of love and affection, Rs. 1,00,000 for loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000 for funeral expenses. 12. It is allowed accordingly. 13. In view of the above, the compensation amount comes as under: Accordingly, compensation is assessed as Rs. 13,66,624. 14. Resultantly, a sum of Rs. 3,85,344 is enhanced (Rs. 13,66,624 - Rs. 9,81,280). 15. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 16. Accordingly, the respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with up-to-date interest accrued thereon with the Registrar General of this court within a period of six weeks from today, failing which appellants-claimants shall be entitled for penal interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on account of delayed payment. 17. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release the amount in favour of the appellants-claimants proportionally in terms of the award dated 2.5.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.