UNREPORTED
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC. APP. 522/2009 and CM No.23347/2010
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate
versus
JAGNI DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay K. Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent No.1
% Date of Decision : February 03, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
1. By way of this appeal, the appellant - Insurance Company seeks to impugn the award dated 28th April, 2009. MAC. APP. 522/2009 Page 1 of 6
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.
3. Although a number of grounds were raised by the appellant at the time of the institution of the appeal, at the time of hearing Mr. A.K. Soni, the learned counsel for the appellant confines his submissions to two grounds. The first ground urged by Mr. Soni is that though the Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, it failed to follow the ratio of the said judgment, which clearly lays down that the suitable multiplier to be adopted in a case where the deceased is a bachelor and the claimants are the parents would be governed by the age of the parents/claimants. The learned Tribunal instead of choosing the multiplier with reference to the age of the claimant- mother who was sole surviving legal heir of the deceased has applied the multiplier of 18, which is applicable to the age of the deceased.
4. The second ground sought to be urged by Mr. Soni, the learned counsel for the appellant, is that the interest awarded by the learned MAC. APP. 522/2009 Page 2 of 6 Tribunal on the award amount is on the higher side, being at the rate of 9% per annum, while as per settled law 7.5% per annum ought to have been awarded to the claimants.
5. It is evident from the award that the compensation payable to the claimant was computed by the Tribunal in the following manner.
6. The income of the deceased was assessed by the Tribunal to be in the sum of ` 2,650/- per month in view of the statement on oath made by the respondent No.1-claimant that the deceased was working as cook in a hotel wherefrom he was getting his salary of ` 2,650/- per month. From the said amount, 50% deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased was made by the Tribunal in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). This figure was then multiplied by 12 in order to ascertain the annual loss of dependency of the claimants and thereafter the multiplier of 18 applied to the same. Thus calculated, the loss of dependency of the claimants was worked out to ` 2,650/- reduced by half X 12 X 18 = ` 2,86,200/-.
MAC. APP. 522/2009 Page 3 of 6
7. Clearly, in my view, the Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier of 18 which was in consonance with the age of the deceased and not with the age of the claimant (the respondent No.1 herein).
8. As regards the age of the claimant - mother, as per the affidavit by way of evidence of PW-1 Smt. Jagni Devi, her age at the time of the filing of the affidavit, i.e., on 28th May, 2008 is stated to be about 60 years, meaning thereby that she was 55 years of age on the date of the accident, i.e., on 12th August, 2003. It is not in dispute that apart from this Affidavit, there is no other documentary evidence available on record to show the age of the claimant. Thus, assuming the age of the claimant to be 55 years, the appropriate multiplier which ought to have been applied by the trial court in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) would be the multiplier of 11 as tabulated for the age-group between 51 to 55 years in paragraph 40 of the said judgment. Adopting the multiplier of 11 to augment the multiplicand, the total loss of dependency works out to ` 2,650/- reduced by half X 12 X 11 = ` 1,74,900/- (rounded off to MAC. APP. 522/2009 Page 4 of 6 ` 1,75,000/-) . After adding the non -pecuniary damages awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate and funeral expenses of the deceased, the total compensation payable to the respondent No.1 works out to ` 1,85,000/-.
9. Adverting to the second contention raised by Mr. Soni on behalf of the appellant - Insurance Company, viz., that the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal on the award amount is on the higher side, I find substance in this contention as well. The interest on the award amount is accordingly scaled down from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of the institution of the petition till the date of realization.
10. Consequently, the impugned award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Fifty per cent of the award amount shall be released to the claimants, as prayed, while the remaining fifty per cent shall be kept in a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank for a period of five years. Needless to say that the balance amount shall be released by the UCO Bank to the appellant - Insurance Company. The statutory deposit of ` 25,000/- be also refunded to the appellant, as prayed. MAC. APP. 522/2009 Page 5 of 6
11. MAC. APP. 522/2009 and CM No.23347/2010 stand disposed of accordingly.
REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) February 03, 2011 km MAC. APP. 522/2009 Page 6 of 6