Dismissed

Chanchal & Anr. v. Basudev & Ors.

Delhi HC2 Dec 2011MAC.APP./12/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses two motor accident claims appeals seeking enhancement of compensation awarded for the death of two young ITI students. The Court held that the Tribunal's assessment based on minimum wages was reasonable given the lack of job guarantees for ITI graduates.

What did the court decide?

The appeals filed seeking enhancement of compensation were dismissed as devoid of merit; no enhancement granted.

Chanchal & Anr. Vs Basudev & Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Delhi HC (2011)

¶1

$~16 & 17

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 2^nd December, 2011

¶4

MAC APP. 10/2011 BEENA DEVI & ANR. ..... Appellants

¶5

Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Adv.

¶6

Versus

¶7

BASUDEV & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Adv. for R-3.

¶8

- MAC APP. 12/2011 CHANCHAL & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Adv.

¶9

Versus

¶10

BASUDEV & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Adv. for R-3.

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL J U D G M E N T

¶12

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

¶13

In MAC. APP. No.10/2011 Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation in respect of a death of young boy Sushil Kumar aged about 20 years at the time of accident, which took place on 30.07.2007. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) by the impugned award granted a compensation of ` 5,70,000/-.

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

MAC APP 10/2011 & 12/2011

¶16

Similarly in MAC. APP. No.12/2011 Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation in respect of death of a young boy Rahul Sharma aged about 22 years at the time of accident, which took place on 30.10.2007. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) by the impugned award assessed the compensation as ` 4,98,000/-.

¶17

The difference in the compensation was on account of the age of the dependents, which is not in dispute.

¶18

The common ground of challenge in both the appeals is that the deceased were doing a Fitter’s course from ITI, Bhalla (District Karnal) and, therefore, their potential employment and earning ought to have been considered by the Tribunal. A reference was made to Ramesh Chand Joshi v. New Indian Assurance Company , C-APP No.212-13/2006 wherein the potential earning of a B.E. student from Delhi College of Engineering was considered. The Tribunal reasoned that in Ramesh Chand Joshi case placement offers were filed on record to show that the candidates were being offered an average salary of 38,000/- per month. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that in this case also during hearing of the appeal the salary paid to one Praveen Kumar in the month of March, 2011 was verified on the orders of this Court and it was found that Praveen Kumar was getting a gross salary of 9,040/- per month and a net salary of ` 8,182/- per month.

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

MAC APP 10/2011 & 12/2011

¶21

The Tribunal while awarding the compensation considered the minimum wages of a skilled workmen (as the deceased was receiving vocational training for Fitter); the Tribunal added 50% towards future prospects/ inflation and considered ` 6,000/- per month as the deceased’s income. The learned counsel for the Respondent Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. placed on record a report from Hindustan Times dated 09.11.2011 to show that 30% of the ITI trained graduates were not getting jobs. It has to be borne in mind that ITI is not a prestigious institution. It is only a few, who gets placement in the reputed public sector companies, whereas, the rest have to be content in private organized and unorganized sector where they are paid the wages as fixed by the government under the Minimum Wages Act. Many do not even get employment.

¶22

In the circumstances computation of compensation on the basis of the annual income of ` 72,000/- is just and reasonable.

¶23

There is no ground to interfere with the impugned award, which was passed by a common judgment in both the appeals.

¶24

The appeals are devoid of any merit. The same are accordingly dismissed.

¶25

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE

¶26

DECEMBER 02, 2011 hs

¶27

Page 3 of 3

¶28

MAC APP 10/2011 & 12/2011

Chanchal & Anr. v. Basudev & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chanchal & Anr. v. Basudev & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Bajaj Vs Gp Singh & Anr.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rashmi Sharma & Ors.

Baijanti Bai & Ors. Vs Ram Singh & Ors.

Beena Devi & Anr. Vs Basudev & Ors.

Parvati Vs UOI & Ors.

Surender Vs Surender Pal Singh & Ors.