$~9 & 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 11.09.2023 (9)+ MAC.APP. 62/2018 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr.R.K. Tripathi, Adv.

versus MOHD YUSUF & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.S.N.Parashar, Adv.

(10)+ MAC.APP. 3/2022 MOHD YUSUF AND ORS ..... Appellants Through: Mr.S.N.Parashar, Adv.

versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.R.K. Tripathi, Adv. for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL CM APPL. 37993/2019 in MAC.APP. 62/2018

1. For the reasons stated in application, the delay in filing the cross-appeal stands condoned.

2. The application is allowed.

MAC.APP. 62/2018 & CM APPL. 1868/2018 MAC.APP. 3/2022

3. The MAC.APPL.62/2018 has been filed by the Insurance Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL Company challenging the Award dated 17.11.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’) passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Pilot Court), Karkardooma Courts (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in MACT case No.14308 of

2015 titled Mohd. Yusuf & Ors v. Arun Kumar & Anr..

4. The MAC.APPL.3/2022 are the cross-objections filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of the compensation granted in their favour by the learned Tribunal.

5. The limited challenge of the Insurance Company to the Impugned Award is that the learned Tribunal has erred in taking into account the minimum wages notified by the Government of NCT of Delhi for assessing the income of the deceased Sh.Abdul Hasan.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that it was the own case of the claimants that the deceased was driving a TSR registered in the State of Uttar Pradesh and bearing registration no.UP-14-BT-8999 in front of Grimanjli Public School, Thana Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, when it was hit by the car from behind, resulting in his death. The deceased was also a resident of Uttar Pradesh (in short, ‘UP’). The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that therefore, when the deceased was a resident of UP, and was working for gain in the State of UP, the learned Tribunal should have adopted the minimum wages notified by the State of UP instead of one notified by the Government of NCT of Delhi in assessing his income.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in Signature Not Verified taking the minimum wages notified for an ‘Unskilled Labour’ while Digitally Signed By:SUNIL determining the income of the deceased. He submits that as the deceased was working as a driver of the TSR, the minimum wages notified for a ‘Skilled Worker’ should be taken into account.

8. The learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the learned Tribunal has also erred in not granting compensation towards future prospects.

9. The claimants also challenge the Impugned Award on account of non-grant of non-pecuniary damages in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680, as clarified in the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v.

Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors. (2021) 11 SCC 780.

10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

MINIMUM WAGES:

11. As it is not denied that the deceased was a resident of State of UP, and was working for gain within that State at the time of accident, the learned Tribunal has erred in adopting the minimum wages notified by the Government of NCT of Delhi for determining the income of the deceased. The Impugned Award, to this extent, is liable to be modified. It is directed that the income of the deceased shall be determined on the basis of the minimum wages notified by the State of UP as on the date of the accident.

12. At the same time, it had been proved on record by the claimants that the deceased was working as a driver of the TSR on the dat